Pablo | v1.12.0Mar 31st 2023 | (+213/-191) | ||
Pablo | v1.11.0Jul 8th 2022 | (+187) | ||
Leo | v1.10.0Mar 1st 2022 | |||
Leo | v1.9.0Jan 9th 2022 | (+15/-12) | ||
Leo | v1.8.0May 22nd 2021 | (+19) | ||
Leo | v1.7.0May 9th 2021 | (+15) | ||
Leo | v1.6.0May 7th 2021 | (-12) | ||
Leo | v1.5.0May 7th 2021 | (+18/-18) | ||
Leo | v1.4.0May 7th 2021 | (+32/-32) | ||
Leo | v1.3.0May 7th 2021 | (+274/-283) |
Sebo, Jeff & Tyler John (2020) Consequentialism and nonhuman animals, in Douglas W. Portmore (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Consequentialism, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 563–591.
Combining consequentialism with welfarism—the view that well-being is the only source of value—yields utilitarianism, the theory that the morally right act is the one that maximizes well-being. When utilitarianism is further combined with hedonism as an account of well-being,being, the result is hedonistic, or classical,classical, utilitarianism—an influential theory held by Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Henry Sidgwick,Sidgwick, according to which the morally right act is that which maximizes the surplus of happiness over suffering. If instead utilitarianism is combined with a desire-fulfilment account of well-being, the result is preference utilitarianism, which holds that the morally right act is that which maximizes preference satisfaction.
MacAskill, William & Darius Meissner (2020) 'Consequentialism', in Elements and types of utilitarianism, Utilitarianism.
Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter (2003) Consequentialism, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, May 20 (updated 3 June 2019).
Combining consequentialism with welfarism—the view that well-being is the only source of value—yields utilitarianism, the theory that
thean act is morally rightact is the one thatif and only if it maximizes well-being. When utilitarianism is further combined with hedonism as an account of well-being, the result ishedonistic, or classical,hedonistic utilitarianism—an influential theory held by Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and HenrySidgwick, according to which theSidgwick. On this theory, an act is morally rightact is that whichif and only if it maximizes the surplus of happiness over suffering.If insteadIf, instead, utilitarianism is combined with a desire-fulfilmentfulfillment account of well-being, the result is preference utilitarianism, which holds thatthean act is morally rightact is that whichif and only if it maximizes preference satisfaction.Consequentialism may instead be combined with a non-welfarist axiology. One such theory is pluralistic consequentialism,
onwhichthe rightholds that an act isthat whichmorally right if and only if it maximizes the overall degree to which various different values—including both well-being and non well-being sources of value—are realized.Another important difference between consequentialist views is whether the nature of the beneficiary influences how we
weightweigh the good. Classicalutilitarians,utilitarians, for example, would argue that one unit of pleasure is equally good no matter who experiences it, while prioritarians argue that it would be better if that unit of pleasure was experienced by someone who is relatively worse off.MacAskill, William & Darius Meissner (2020) 'Consequentialism', in Elements and types of utilitarianism,
Utilitarianismutilitarianism.