DOCSLIB.ORG

Rule-Utilitarianism and Euthanasia 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rule-Utilitarianism and Euthanasia 1 1 Rule-Utilitarianism and Euthanasia Brad Hooker 1 Introduction Different moral theories will of course ap- proach questions about the moral status of eu- As scientific and technological advances enable thanasia in different ways, though some of these the medical profession to keep people alive theories will end up with the same conclusions. longer, the question arises whether this is This essay considers euthanasia from the per- always a good thing. Should those who could spective of just one moral theory. The theory is prolong life step back under certain conditions rule-utilitarianism. Rule-utilitarianism assesses and allow a very ill person to die? And if possible rules in terms of their expected utility. allowing to die is sometimes right, then what It then tells us to follow the rules with the about actively killing patients when this would greatest expected utility. (Expected utility is be better for the patients than allowing them to calculated by multiplying the utility of each die more slowly and painfully? possible outcome by the probability that it will Such questions are debated under the occur.) heading of euthanasia. The term ``euthanasia'' In the next section, I explain what the term derives from the Greek term for an easy, pain- ``utility'' means. Then I outline another utilitar- less death. However, we often now hear the ian theory ± act-utilitarianism. I do this in order term ``passive euthanasia,'' which refers to pass- to contrast rule-utilitarianism with this perhaps ing up opportunities to save an individual from more familiar theory. I then outline the distinc- death, out of concern for that individual. If tions between different kinds of euthanasia. The passive euthanasia is indeed one kind of eutha- final sections of the paper consider the various nasia, then ``euthanasia'' cannot mean ``killing factors that would go into a rule-utilitarian de- painlessly''; for to pass up an opportunity to cision about euthanasia. save someone, i.e., passive euthanasia, is argu- ably not killing. Furthermore, the death in- volved in passive euthanasia is often painful. 2 Utility So let us take the term ``euthanasia'' to mean ``either killing or passing up opportunities to A moral theory is utilitarian if and only if it save someone, out of concern for that person.'' assesses acts and/or rules in terms of nothing (Note that, on this definition, what the Nazis but their utility. Classical utilitarianism took called ``euthanasia'' was not euthanasia, because ``utility'' to refer to the well-being of sentient it was not done out of concern for the pa- creatures. And classical utilitarianism took the tients.) well-being of sentient creatures to consist in 22 Rule-Utilitarianism and Euthanasia pleasure and the absence of pain (Bentham, I shall also follow conventional philosophical 1823; Mill, 1863; Sidgwick, 1874). On this view, opinion in supposing that it is possible to be in people's level of well-being is determined solely such a bad condition that death would be a by how much pleasure and pain they experience. welcome release. Severe pain can be unremit- If anything is desirable for its own sake, ting, and indeed so overpowering that the pleasure is. But most utilitarians now think person experiencing it can think of nothing that pleasure, even if construed as widely as else. If the rest of my life would consist of possible, is not the only thing desirable in itself, nothing but excruciating physical pain, then I and pain not the only thing undesirable in itself might be better off dead. Indeed, if the rest of (Moore, 1903, ch. 6; Hare, 1981, 101ff; Parfit, my life would consist wholly of intense psycho- 1984, appendix I; Griffin, 1986, Part One; logical suffering, I'd be better off dead. Of Goodin, 1991, p. 244; Harsanyi, 1993). Utilitar- course, we may argue about where to draw the ians can think that things that are desirable for line between being better off dead and being their own sake include not only pleasure but better off alive (Mitchell, 1995). But it seems also important knowledge, friendship, auton- deeply unreasonable to insist that there are omy, achievement, and so on. Indeed, many never any instances of patients who would be utilitarians now construe utility just as the ful- better off dead. fillment of desire or the satisfaction of prefer- Now, what about divinely bestowed benefits ences, with relatively few restrictions on what and harms? Most utilitarians, and all utilitarian the desires or preferences are for. writers of our era, have written as if there were One reason most utilitarians have moved no rewards or punishments granted by a god or away from a version of utilitarianism that gods. This is not to say that all utilitarians have focuses exclusively on pleasure has to do with been atheists. In fact, many have been religious knowledge. Many of us care about certain believers (perhaps most notably, Bishop Berke- things over and above the pleasure they typic- ley, 1712). Nor would any utilitarians ± theistic ally bring, and one of these things is knowing or agnostic or atheistic ± hold that a person's the important truths (e.g., about the nature of religious beliefs are completely irrelevant to the the universe and about oneself), even if not morality of how he or she is treated. For any knowing the truth would be more pleasant for utilitarian would recognize that people's reli- us. Bliss isn't everything ± for example, if pur- gious beliefs can have an effect on what brings chased at the cost of ignorance. To be sure, them pleasure and on what preferences they knowledge does not always constitute a more form. So utilitarianism will favor, for example, significant addition to well-being than does freedom of religion and even the neutrality of pleasure. But sometimes it does. the state with respect to religion.1 But while People also care about autonomy, by which I utilitarians can think that people's religious mean control over one's own life. Many of us beliefs are often relevant to moral argument would be willing to trade away some pleasure about how these people should be treated, for the sake of an increase in autonomy. Again, modern utilitarians eschew basing any moral this is not to say that even a tiny increase in argument on the truth of any religious belief. autonomy is more important than a great deal of And this prohibition on assuming the truth of pleasure; rather, the point is that pleasure is not any religious belief applies to the belief that always more important to our well-being than there are divinely bestowed benefits and harms. autonomy. Neither value is always more im- That said, we must also note that utilitarian- portant than the other. ism is also often said to assume a god's-eye I agree with such convictions. Knowledge, point of view. The main respect in which this autonomy, and other things can be beneficial is true is that the utilitarian approach prescribes to us, can increase our well-being, over and a totally impartial calculation of well-being. To beyond whatever pleasure they directly or in- be more specific, in the calculation of utility, directly bring us. I shall presuppose this in what benefits or harms to any one person are to count follows. for just as much as the same amount of benefit 23 Euthanasia or harm to anyone else ± that is, count the same way to prevent something much worse. But we without regard to race, religion, gender, social don't think such acts are permissible when the class, or the like. expected and actual utility of such an act would It is a mistake to think that utilitarians hold be only slightly greater than that of complying that what benefits more people is necessarily with the prohibition. better than what benefits fewer. Utilitarians Another problem with act-utilitarianism is focus on the greatest aggregate good. What that it seems unreasonably demanding, requir- results in the greatest aggregate good is some- ing acts of self-sacrifice that seem beyond the times not what benefits the majority. This is call of duty. Think how much a middle-class because the benefits to each of the smaller individual in a relatively affluent country would number may be large and the benefits to each have to give to CARE or Oxfam before further of the greater number small. And large benefits sacrifices on her part would constitute a larger to each of a minority can add up to more than loss to her than the benefit to the starving that small benefits to each of a majority. Thus, utili- CARE or Oxfam would produce with that con- tarians will favor what benefits the minority if tribution. Making sacrifices for strangers up to (but only if ) what benefits the minority results the point that act-utilitarianism requires would in the greatest good overall. be saintly. But morality, most of us think, does On the other hand, many philosophers have not require sainthood. pointed out that utilitarianism gives no intrinsic weight to how equally or fairly benefits are distributed. I myself accept that this is an im- 4 Rule-utilitarianism portant potential problem with utilitarianism. But because I don't think these worries about Rule-utilitarianism differs from act-utilitarian- distribution are relevant to euthanasia, I shall ism in that rule-utilitarianism does not assess ignore them in this paper. each act solely by its utility. Rather, rule-utili- tarianism assesses acts in terms of rules, and rules in terms of their utility. Rule-utilitarian- 3 Act-utilitarianism ism holds that an act is morally permissible if and only if the rules with the greatest expected The most direct and most discussed form of utility would allow it.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Paradox of Happiness Ben Eggleston
    1 Paradox of Happiness Ben Eggleston The paradox of happiness is the puzzling but apparently inescapable fact that regarding happiness as the sole ultimately valuable end or objective, and acting accordingly, often results in less happiness than results from regarding other goods as ultimately valuable (and acting accordingly). That is, in many circumstances, happiness is more effectively achieved when other objectives are regarded as worth pursuing for their own sakes than when happiness alone is regarded as worth pursuing for its own sake (see happiness; hedonism; intrinsic value). These other objectives might be regarded as ultimately valuable instead of happiness, or merely in addition to happiness; but they must be valued for their own sakes, and not merely as means to the achievement of happiness. These other objectives may include loving family relationships and friendships, meaningful professional relationships, immersion in rewarding work, the exercise of skills and abilities, accomplishments and triumphs, participation in religion or a large cause or movement, and contributions to one’s culture or nation. The paradox of happiness can be understood as applying to people individually or in groups. With respect to people individually, the paradox of happiness is the fact that any given individual is likely to be less happy if happiness is her sole ultimate objective than she would be if other goods were among her ultimate objectives. With respect to groups of people, the paradox of happiness is the fact that any given group of people, such as a community or a society, is likely to be less happy, collectively, if happiness is its sole collective ultimate objective than it would be if other goods were among its collective ultimate objectives.
    [Show full text]
  • Satisficing Consequentialism Author(S): Michael Slote and Philip Pettit Source: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, Vol
    Satisficing Consequentialism Author(s): Michael Slote and Philip Pettit Source: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, Vol. 58 (1984), pp. 139-163+165-176 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Aristotelian Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4106846 Accessed: 15/10/2008 09:26 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The Aristotelian Society and Blackwell Publishing are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes.
    [Show full text]
  • Consequentialism and Respect: Two Strategies for Justifying Act Utilitarianism
    Utilitas (2020), 32,1–18 doi:10.1017/S0953820819000086 ARTICLE Consequentialism and Respect: Two Strategies for Justifying Act Utilitarianism Ben Eggleston* University of Kansas *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] (First published online 23 April 2019) Abstract Most arguments in support of act utilitarianism are elaborations of one of two basic strat- egies. One is the consequentialist strategy. This strategy relies on the consequentialist premise that an act is right if and only if it produces the best possible consequences and the welfarist premise that the value of a state of affairs is entirely determined by its overall amount of well-being. The other strategy is based on the idea of treating indivi- duals respectfully and resolving conflicts among individuals in whatever way best con- forms to that idea. Although both of these strategies can be used to argue for the principle of act utilitarianism, they are significantly different from each other, and these differences cause them to have different strengths and weaknesses. It emerges that which argumentative strategy is chosen by a proponent of act utilitarianism has a large impact on which virtues her view has and which objections it is vulnerable to. I. Introduction Act utilitarianism is one of the most heavily debated views in moral philosophy, and the arguments that can be given in support of it are remarkably diverse. But most of them are elaborations of one of two basic strategies. These two strategies are significantly dif- ferent from each other, and these differences cause them to have different strengths and weaknesses. In this article, I describe the two strategies and explore their advantages and disadvantages.
    [Show full text]
  • The Utilitarian Approach
    Confirming Pages CHAPTER 7 The Utilitarian Approach The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation. Jeremy Bentham, COLLECTED WORKS (1843) 7.1. The Revolution in Ethics The late 18th and 19th centuries witnessed an astonishing series of upheavals: The modern nation-state emerged from the French Revolution and the wreckage of the Napoleonic empire; the revolutions of 1848 showed the transforming power of the ideas of “liberty, equality, and fraternity”; in the New World, America was born, sporting a new kind of consti- tution; and the American Civil War (1861–1865) would finish off slavery in Western civilization. All the while, the Indus- trial Revolution was bringing about a complete restructuring of society. It is not surprising that new ideas about ethics emerged during this era. In particular, Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) made a powerful argument for a novel conception of morality. Morality, he urged, is not about pleasing God, nor is it about being faithful to abstract rules. Rather, morality is about mak- ing the world as happy as possible. Bentham believed in one ultimate moral principle, namely, the Principle of Utility. This principle requires us, in all circumstances, to produce the most happiness that we can. Bentham was the leader of a group of philosophical radicals whose aim was to reform the laws and institutions of England along utilitarian lines. One of his followers was James Mill, the distinguished Scottish philosopher, historian, and economist. James Mill’s son, John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), would become the leading advocate of utilitarian moral theory.
    [Show full text]
  • 6. Railton's “Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality”
    6. Railton’s “Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality” Martín Abreu Zavaleta July 14, 2015 Railton is addressing one kind of problem that we raised. In class, we discussed the case of a parent who is offered a choice between saving the life of her own child or saving the life of another child. Saving the life of the other child would produce overall more utility than saving the life of her own, so utilitarian consequentialism claims that she should save the life of the other child. To many people, this seems to be the wrong result: surely, they think, whatever duty she has to save the life of the other child is overridden by her duties and obligations to save the life of her own child. Samuel Scheffler presents us with a less tragic, but related problem for consequentialism. Schef- fler observes that consequentialism demands that we don’t buy new shoes if we can spend that money in ways that will help other people more, or that we don’t watch TV if instead we could be doing more utility maximizing things. These two cases point to one important problem for consequentialism (here, under the guise of utilitarianism). Consequentialism seems to alienate us from the people we love and from things that make our lives richer. By focusing solely on the maximization of utility, it seems to ignore the value that other things bring into our lives: things like friendship, the love for one’s family, entertainment, art appreciation, etc. A life lived in line with consequentialist demands seems to be a very impoverished life, enslaved to the maximization of utility.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Rule Consequentialism and the Problem of Partial Acceptance 1
    1 Rule Consequentialism and the Problem of Partial Acceptance 1. Introduction Often the consequences of the acceptance of a rule depend on how many people accept that rule. The question of how to deal with differing levels of acceptance is one that a wide range of ethical theories must answer. Partial compliance and acceptance worries have stirred recent debate in Rule Utilitarianism (e.g. Ridge 2006, Hooker 2007), but also raise problems for Kantianism (e.g. Korsgaard 1986) and Contractualism (e.g. Watson, 1998). The question seems particularly relevant to Rule Consequentialism, since the number of people following a code of rules typically has a direct influence on the consequences of those rules. In an effort to determine the best version of Rule Utilitarianism1, I will analyze three established types of Rule Utilitarianism before presenting my own suggestion.2 I will first discuss a Fixed Rate suggestion (Hooker, 2000) and Michael Ridge’s Variable-Rate Rule Utilitarianism (Ridge, 2006). I will then turn to Holly Smith’s Optimum Rate Utilitarianism (Smith, 2010) before introducing my own proposal, Maximizing Expectation Rate Rule Utilitarianism. After analyzing these variants of Rule Utilitarianism, I will argue that Optimum Rate and Maximizing Expectation are the two most plausible versions of Rule Utilitarianism, though Maximizing Expectation captures our intuitions about solving partial acceptance problems without the costs of the other three theories discussed. 1 Because much of the debate on this topic has been framed in the context of Utilitarianism rather than Consequentialism, I will discuss Rule Utilitarian formulations. Most arguments here can be easily extended to Rule Consequentialist theories.
    [Show full text]
  • Future Generations: Further Problems
    DEREK PARFIT Future Generations: Further Problems There are three kinds of choice. Different Number Choices affect both the number and the identities of future people. Same Number Choices affect the identities of future people, but do not affect their number. Same People Choices affect neither. Different Number Choices raise well-known problems. Less well­ known are the problems raised by Same Number Choices. Both are discussed above by Gregory Kavka.' I shall continue this discussion. 2 1. THE FUTURE INDIVIDUALS PARADOX Consider first a Same People Choice: The Nuclear Technician. Some technician lazily chooses not to check some tank in which nuclear wastes are buried. As a result there is a catastrophe two centuries later. Leaked radiation kills and injures thousands of people. We can plausibly assume that, whether or not this technician checks this tank, the same particular people would be born during the next two centuries. On this assumption, this technician's choice is worse for the people struck by the catastrophe. If he had chosen to check 1. This issue; pp. 93-II2. 2. This paper derives from a typescript, "Overpopulation: Part One," that I circulated in 1976. This is why I do not refer to those who have later reached and published similar conclusions. Throughout this paper "he" means "he or she." © 1981 by Princeton University Press Philosophy & Public Affairs I I, no. 2 0048-3915/81/020113-60$3.00/ I Philosophy & Public Affairs the tank, these same people would have later lived, and escaped the catastrophe. Is it morally relevant that the people whom this technician harms do not yet exist when he makes his choice? On one view, moral prin­ ciples only cover those who can reciprocate-those who can benefit or harm each other.
    [Show full text]
  • Utilitarianism
    Utilitarianism Teleological – Morality is dependent on outcomes and not concerned with action motives or intentions. End justifies the means. Jeremy Bentham’s ethical theory of utilitarianism The Principles of Morals and Legislation What drove human beings. What goodness/badness is all about. The principle of utility Hedonic calculus. Measures how good/bad a consequence is. Motivation of human beings Hedonist – he believes humans are motivated by pleasure and pain. “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure”. Pain is sole evil, pleasure sole good. The principle of utility Rightness/wrongness of an action depends on it’s ‘utility’ or usefulness. Usefulness refers to the amount of pleasure caused. ‘An action is right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number’. Good = maximum pleasure and minimisation of pain. Bentham says you should choose to act in a way that causes maximum pleasure for most people. Hedonic calculus A tool for weighing up consequential pleasure and pain from an action to work out if it’s good or not. Certainty – How certain is it there will be pain/pleasure? Duration – How long will the sensation last? Extent – How wide are it’s effects? Intensity – How intense is resulting pain/pleasure? Purity – How free from pain is it? Remoteness (propinquity) – How near is resulting pain/pleasure? Richness (fecundity) – Will it lead to further pleasure? Cool Dudes Eat In Posh Rich Restaurants Act utilitarianism Whenever possible, the principle of utility should be applied to each individual situation. Rightness/wrongness of individual acts are calculated by the amount of resulting happiness.
    [Show full text]
  • Can a Utilitarian Respect Rights? by Chris Lyons
    Can a utilitarian respect rights? by Chris Lyons I would like to argue that utilitarianism does not respect rights absolutely, but that an absolute upholding of rights is not a practical possibility, and that utilitarianism does, in fact, provide as strong a defence of rights as is possible. Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialist moral theory that holds that the right moral action is that which produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number. It was first proposed by Jeremy Bentham in the early nineteenth century and refined some decades later by his godson, John Stuart Mill. It rejects moral codes based upon customs or traditions, or those handed down by leaders or gods, and holds that it is only the consequences of an action that are relevant, and only those consequences which affect the amount of pleasure or happiness in the world. The goal is to maximize utility, the net amount of happiness or pleasure in the world, and to achieve this, the consequences to everyone affected by an action must be taken into account. An immediate problem is that actions have consequences that can ripple out like waves into the future and be completely unpredictable. If the proverbial butterfly can trigger a tornado, then waving a newspaper to hail a taxi could do likewise. Yet it would be absurd to attach moral significance to a totally trivial act and to blame someone for a consequence of their action that was entirely unforeseeable. An example of the latter might be the imagined man in Germany, who, in the thirties, risks his life by jumping into a river to rescue a drowning man, only to find some years later that the man was, in fact, Adolph Hitler and that had he acted less bravely he would have prevented World War Two.
    [Show full text]
  • Sample Essay on Act and Rule Utilitarianism.Pages
    PushMe Press Sample Essay on Act and Rule Utilitarianism Sample Essay on Act and Rule Utilitarianism The following essay was written by an AS students in 30 minutes. It shows a number of deficiencies in technique, so it has been marked in the hope you can do better. Q: EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACT AND RULE UTILITARIANISM. The two concepts of Act and Rule Utilitarianism were first conceived by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Both followed the basic principles of utilitarianism, which focuses on the pursuit of happiness, which is the morally superior act to follow. You mean morally good principle, or sole intrinsic good. This makes it almost completely opposite to the Kantian view of Ethics, where moral obligations should be completed because of their moral worth rather than the pleasure you receive out of this. You aren’t being asked to evaluate so this final comment is irrelevant. This is a poor opening paragraph - the first sentence is redundant, as you should go straight to the point, the second unclear and the third irrelevant. Bentham added to this concept of Utilitarianism by introducing his concept of Act Utilitarianism. This meant that we are all free to pursue what we gain pleasure from (or as Bentham coined it, Utility, as pleasure and happiness are both separate and hard to measure) in the way which society dictates. This allows us to pursue what we find pleasurable, for example, motor racing or drinking coffee, and removes the less morally acceptable factors, such as murder or adultery. The point again is that Bentham argues pleasure is the sole intrinsic good, and as “everyone to count as one and no-one as more than one” we can add up the total of pleasure minus pain and thereby service an idea of the good act.
    [Show full text]
  • Against Maximizing Act-Consequentialism
    Against Maximizing Act-Consequentialism in Moral Theories edited by Jamie Dreier (Blackwell Publishers, 2006), pp. 21-37 1. Introduction Maximizing act consequentialism holds that actions are morally permissible if and only if they maximize the value of consequences—if and only if, that is, no alternative action in the given choice situation has more valuable consequences. 1 It is subject to two main objections. One is that it fails to recognize that morality imposes certain constraints on how we may promote value. Maximizing act consequentialism fails to recognize, I shall argue, that the ends do not always justify the means. Actions with maximally valuable consequences are not always permissible. The second main objection to maximizing act consequentialism is that it mistakenly holds that morality requires us to maximize value. Morality, I shall argue, only requires that we satisfice (promote sufficiently) value, and thus leaves us a greater range of options than maximizing act consequentialism recognizes. The issues discussed are, of course, highly complex, and space limitations prevent me from addressing them fully. Thus, the argument presented should be understood merely as the outline of an argument. 2. What is consequentialism? Act utilitarianism is the paradigm act-consequentialist theory. It holds that an action is permissible if and only if the aggregate (e.g., total or average) well-being that it produces is no less than that produced by any alternative feasible action. Rule utilitarianism is the paradigm rule-consequentialist theory. It holds, roughly, that an action is permissible if and only if conforms to rules that, if generally followed (internalized, upheld, etc.), would produce aggregate well-being that is no less than that produced by any feasible alternative set of rules.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Utilitarianism UUA01 4/26/07 11:25 AM Page Ii
    UUA01 4/26/07 11:25 AM Page i understanding utilitarianism UUA01 4/26/07 11:25 AM Page ii Understanding Movements in Modern Thought Series Editor: Jack Reynolds This series provides short, accessible and lively introductions to the major schools, movements and traditions in philosophy and the his- tory of ideas since the beginning of the Enlightenment. All books in the series are written for undergraduates meeting the subject for the first time. Published Understanding Empiricism Understanding Phenomenology Robert G. Meyers David R. Cerbone Understanding Existentialism Understanding Poststructuralism Jack Reynolds James Williams Understanding Hegelianism Understanding Utilitarianism Robert Sinnerbrink Tim Mulgan Understanding Hermeneutics Understanding Virtue Ethics Lawrence K. Schmidt Stan van Hooft Forthcoming titles include Understanding Ethics Understanding Pragmatism Tim Chappell Axel Mueller Understanding Feminism Understanding Psychoanalysis Peta Bowden and Jane Mummery Joanne Faulkner and Matthew Sharpe Understanding German Idealism Will Dudley Understanding Rationalism Charlie Heunemann Understanding Naturalism Jack Ritchie UUA01 4/26/07 11:25 AM Page iii understanding utilitarianism Tim Mulgan ACUMEN UUA01 4/26/07 11:25 AM Page iv © Tim Mulgan, 2007 This book is copyright under the Berne Convention. No reproduction without permission. All rights reserved. First published in 2007 by Acumen Acumen Publishing Limited Stocksfield Hall Stocksfield NE43 7TN www.acumenpublishing.co.uk ISBN: 978-1-84465-089-7 (hardcover) ISBN: 978-1-84465-090-3
    [Show full text]