| 書目名稱 | Doing the Best We Can | | 副標(biāo)題 | An Essay in Informal | | 編輯 | Fred Feldman | | 視頻video | http://file.papertrans.cn/283/282434/282434.mp4 | | 叢書名稱 | Philosophical Studies Series | | 圖書封面 |  | | 描述 | Several years ago I came across a marvelous little paper in which Hector-Neri Castaneda shows that standard versions of act utilitarian- l ism are formally incoherent. I was intrigued by his argument. It had long seemed to me that I had a firm grasp on act utilitarianism. Indeed, it had often seemed to me that it was the clearest and most attractive of normative theories. Yet here was a simple and relatively uncontrover- sial argument that showed, with only some trivial assumptions, that the doctrine is virtually unintelligible. The gist of Castaneda‘s argument is this: suppose we understand act utilitarianism to be the view that an act is obligatory if and only if its utility exceeds that of each alternative. Suppose it is obligatory for a certain person to perform an act with two parts - we can call it ‘A & B‘. Then, obviously enough, it is also obligatory for this person to perform the parts, A and B. If act utilitarianism were true, we appar- ently could infer that the utility of A & B is higher than that of A, and higher than that of B (because A & B is obligatory, and the other acts are alternatives to A & B). | | 出版日期 | Book 1986 | | 關(guān)鍵詞 | Immanuel Kant; Indian; Utilitarianism; access; accessibility; concept; deontic logic; individual; morality; p | | 版次 | 1 | | doi | https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4570-8 | | isbn_softcover | 978-94-010-8531-1 | | isbn_ebook | 978-94-009-4570-8Series ISSN 0921-8599 Series E-ISSN 2542-8349 | | issn_series | 0921-8599 | | copyright | D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland 1986 |
The information of publication is updating
|
|
|Archiver|手機(jī)版|小黑屋|
派博傳思國(guó)際
( 京公網(wǎng)安備110108008328)
GMT+8, 2026-1-27 08:05
發(fā)表于 2025-3-21 18:25:14
