Instead of Hayate, I answer your question (I have collaborative research on EA with him).
Do you remember our discussion on this topic at Princeton University? After coming back to Japan, I read the paper written by Daisuke Arie. https://journals.openedition.org/etudes-benthamiennes/5678?lang=en (I read the Japanese version one.) What do you think about this paper?
I agree that 功利 is a bad impression for the Japanese (and Chinese). Arie agrees in the paper, too. And I think, for education, this translation may lead people to misunderstand utilitarianism.
However, I think this is not a bad translation. Even if we change this translation with, e.g., 大福主義 and people understand utilitarianism as not egoism but maximizing overall well-being, people probably think utilitarianism leads to a counter-intuitive conclusion and also think it is a wrong moral theory. The problem is not in translation but in their understanding of utilitarianism itself.
Thank you, Fai. I'm Masashi. Long time no see!
Instead of Hayate, I answer your question (I have collaborative research on EA with him).
Do you remember our discussion on this topic at Princeton University?
After coming back to Japan, I read the paper written by Daisuke Arie.
https://journals.openedition.org/etudes-benthamiennes/5678?lang=en
(I read the Japanese version one.)
What do you think about this paper?
I agree that 功利 is a bad impression for the Japanese (and Chinese). Arie agrees in the paper, too. And I think, for education, this translation may lead people to misunderstand utilitarianism.
However, I think this is not a bad translation. Even if we change this translation with, e.g., 大福主義 and people understand utilitarianism as not egoism but maximizing overall well-being, people probably think utilitarianism leads to a counter-intuitive conclusion and also think it is a wrong moral theory. The problem is not in translation but in their understanding of utilitarianism itself.