hamze hatampouri
Abstract
In this paper, we defend the rule-based interpretation of John Stewart Mill's utilitarianism. First, we will explain briefly this recent and new dualism in the philosophy of utilitarian ethics. In general, Utilitarianists are divided into two categories: Rule-based and action-oriented. This is a recent ...
Read More
In this paper, we defend the rule-based interpretation of John Stewart Mill's utilitarianism. First, we will explain briefly this recent and new dualism in the philosophy of utilitarian ethics. In general, Utilitarianists are divided into two categories: Rule-based and action-oriented. This is a recent division, but in our opinion, Mill's Utilitarian is rule-based. He uses the principle of utility through the intermediation of rules, not direct and immediate and he uses that fundamental principle only when creating rules or contradicting the rules. In order to defend this claim, we first refer to Ermeson’s interpretation and then we will examine seven arguments of adherents and opponents of Mill's rule utilitarianism and in this review, we will amplify the words of supporters like Ermeson and criticize the words of opponents like Crisp. Then we will bring five witnesses to consolidate our claims which according to them, our interpretation of the rule-based utilitarianism of Mill is strengthened and supported.
Mohammad Hussein Arshadi; Sahar Kavandi; Mohsen Jahed
Volume 11, Issue 43 , October 2015, , Pages 43-70
Abstract
Abstract
Moral issues are studied in the three realms of metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. Utilitarianism is one of the important view in normative ethics. J.J.C. Smart is one of the most distinguished act-utilitarian whose thoughts are highly influenced by Sidgwick’ ideas. Smart ...
Read More
Abstract
Moral issues are studied in the three realms of metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. Utilitarianism is one of the important view in normative ethics. J.J.C. Smart is one of the most distinguished act-utilitarian whose thoughts are highly influenced by Sidgwick’ ideas. Smart has tried to answer two current criticisms leveled against utilitarianism, i.e. the conflict with moral intuitions and the difficulties of calculating the consequences of actions. Thus, first he denies the epistemological validity of moral intuitions and adopts a noncognitivist approach. In some cases that fulfillment of utilitarian action results in conflict with moral intuitions, he appeals to distinction between the context of theory and the context of action. In order to remove the problem of calculating, he benefits from games theory and application of mixed strategy as well as the axiom of ripples on the pond. In this essay, following the presentation of the theoretical foundation of smart’s idea, some criticism will be levelled and finally his answers to them will be evaluated.
