DOCSLIB.ORG

Hedonistic Act Utilitarianism Action Guidance and Moral Intuitions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hedonistic Act Utilitarianism Action Guidance and Moral Intuitions Hedonistic Act Utilitarianism Action Guidance and Moral Intuitions Simon Rosenqvist Dissertation presented at Uppsala University to be publicly examined in University Main Building, Room IV, Biskopsgatan 3, Uppsala, Friday, 3 April 2020 at 13:15 for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The examination will be conducted in English. Faculty examiner: Professor Ben Eggleston (University of Kansas). Abstract Rosenqvist, S. 2020. Hedonistic Act Utilitarianism. Action Guidance and Moral Intuitions. 137 pp. Uppsala: Department of Philosophy, Uppsala University. ISBN 978-91-506-2808-1. According to hedonistic act utilitarianism, an act is morally right if and only if, and because, it produces at least as much pleasure minus pain as any alternative act available to the agent. This dissertation gives a partial defense of utilitarianism against two types of objections: action guidance objections and intuitive objections. In Chapter 1, the main themes of the dissertation are introduced. The chapter also examines questions of how to understand utilitarianism, including (a) how to best formulate the moral explanatory claim of the theory, (b) how to best interpret the phrase "pleasure minus pain," and (c) how the theory is related to act consequentialism. The first part (Chapters 2 and 3) deals with action guidance objections to utilitarianism. Chapter 2 defines two kinds of action guidance: doxastic and evidential guidance. It is argued that utilitarianism is evidentially but not doxastically guiding for us. Chapter 3 evaluates various action guidance objections to utilitarianism. These are the objections that utilitarianism, because it is not doxastically guiding, is a bad moral theory, fails to be a moral theory, is an uninteresting and unimportant moral theory, and is a false moral theory. The second part (Chapters 4, 5 and 6) deals with intuitive objections to utilitarianism. Chapter 4 presents three intuitive objections: Experience Machine, Transplant, and Utility Monster. Three defenses of utilitarianism are subsequently evaluated. Chapter 5 and 6 introduces two alternative defenses of utilitarianism against intuitive objections, both of which concern the role that imagination plays in thought experimentation. In Chapter 5, it is argued that we sometimes unknowingly carry out the wrong thought experiment when we direct intuitive objections against utilitarianism. In many such cases, we elicit moral intuitions that we believe give us reason to reject utilitarianism, but that in fact do not. In Chapter 6, it is argued that using the right kind of sensory imagination when we perform thought experiments will positively affect the epistemic trustworthiness of our moral intuitions. Moreover, it is suggested that doing so renders utilitarianism more plausible. In Chapter 7, the contents of the dissertation are summarized. Keywords: hedonistic act utilitarianism, consequentialism, action guidance, moral intuitions, hedonism, thought experiments, ignorance, imagination, morality, normativity, ethics, moral theory, normative ethics Simon Rosenqvist, Department of Philosophy, Ethics and Social Philosophy, Box 627, Uppsala University, SE-75126 Uppsala, Sweden. © Simon Rosenqvist 2020 ISBN 978-91-506-2808-1 urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-404266 (http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-404266) Acknowledgments I must first thank the person who, far beyond any call to duty, commented on more drafts, excerpts, and chapters of this book than did everyone else com- bined: my supervisor Jens Johansson. His detailed and insightful comments on everything in this book has shaped my discussion and philosophical beliefs in many ways. I could not have finished this project without his help. I am also very grateful to my supervisor Folke Tersman. Over the years, Folke has read and commented on all aspects of the chapters in this book, and has provided numerous helpful comments on the project as a whole. His calm demeanor, persistent encouragement, and constructive suggestions helped me stay on track towards finishing my studies. Other people were also crucial in bringing this project to a close. Special thanks go to David Alm, who acted as my final seminar opponent, as well as Per Algander, Eric Carlson, Sebastian Lutz, and Andrew Reisner for their de- tailed comments on an early draft of the whole book. Moreover, Elinor Mason, Michael Ridge, Jakob Green Werkmäster, Henrik Andersson, Karl Bergman, Rebecca Wallbank, Olle Risberg, Victor Moberger, Caleb Perl, Andrew Moore, and Dorothee Bleisch kindly read and commented on individual chap- ters, helping me improve them in numerous ways. Finally, while writing I have often ventured beyond my limited area of expertise – many thanks to Andreas Stokke, Nils Franzén, Henrik Rhydén, and Nicholas Wiltsher for an- swering naïve questions about philosophical topics I knew nothing (and still know very little) about. Finally, my thanks to Anna Gustafsson for her help in administrative matters. Many other people also deserve thanks for making the Department of Phi- losophy at Uppsala University such a wonderful place, and for the inspiring discussions that we have had over the years. Thank you, Emil Andersson, Jo- han Boberg, Tommaso Braida, Ekrem Çetinkaya, Tomas Ekenberg, Karl Ekendahl, Matti Eklund, Anna Folland, Susanne Gauffin, Elinor Hållén, Mag- nus Jedenheim-Edling, Kasper Kristensen, Guilherme Marques Pedro, Irene Martinez Marin, Patricia Mindus, Carl Montan, Jeremy Page, Jessica Pepp, Elena Prats, Sebastian Andres Reyes Molina, Pauliina Remes, Elisabeth Schellekens Dammann, Rysiek Sliwinski, Maarten Steenhagen, Hallvard Stette, Alexander Stöpfgeshoff, Maria Svedberg, Oda Tvedt, Ulrika Valdeson, and Annika Wennersten. Some people were crucial to enabling my Ph.D. studies in the first place. Special mention goes to Jonas Bååth, with whom I spent many hours in librar- ies, dreaming about future doctoral studies, and to Maria Hansson, with whom I have read and discussed so much philosophy over the years. I am also grate- ful to the Department of Philosophy at Lund University for the years I spent there during my undergraduate and master’s studies – to Wlodek Rabinowicz and Dan Egonsson for their kind tutelage, and to Frits Gåvertsson, Jakob Green Werkmäster, Henrik Andersson, Andrés Garcia, Eric Brandstedt, and Fritz-Anton Fritzon for our highly enjoyable postgraduate seminars and read- ing groups. I have presented drafts of the chapters in this book at several places: at nearly a dozen meetings of the Higher Seminar of Practical Philosophy in Uppsala, at the Swedish Conference of Philosophy in 2015 and 2017, at the Higher Seminar in Practical Philosophy at Lund University in 2017, at the PG- WIP Seminar at Edinburgh University in 2016, at the Cambridge-Uppsala Graduate Workshop in 2017, at the Conference of the International Society for Utilitarian Studies in 2016 and 2018, at the Conference of the British Post- graduate Philosophical Association in 2016, at the Rocky Mountain Ethics Congress in 2017, and at the European Congress for Analytic Philosophy in 2017. My thanks for the helpful comments offered by the audiences at those occasions, which helped me improve this manuscript in various ways. I am honored to have received a number of grants over the years, which helped me fund travels to conferences as well as costs of living. My thanks to Erik and Gurli Hultengren’s Foundation, Anna Maria Lundin’s Scholarship Fund, Ekmans V’s Scholarship Fund, Håkansson’s Travel Stipend, Helge Ax:son Johnsson’s Foundation, Anders Karitz’s Foundation, and Svanberg’s Scholarship Fund. I am also very grateful to Edinburgh’s Department of Phi- losophy for letting me visit them for four months in 2016. Most of all, I owe my family for their enduring support over the past few years. Special thanks to my mother, Jane Asplund Rosenqvist, for unwavering encouragement and support, and for helping me take care of my little son Cas- pian during the final and most intense period of writing. And most im- portantly, thanks to Milena Siegrist, my partner and love, for careful and in- sightful comments on the final manuscript of this book, for crucial emotional support, and for our many intellectually stimulating discussions. For Milena. Contents Acknowledgments......................................................................................... iii 1. Introduction ................................................................................................. 9 1.1 About the Book .................................................................................... 9 1.2 Formulating Utilitarianism ................................................................. 14 1.3 Moral Explanation .............................................................................. 18 1.4 Pleasure minus Pain ........................................................................... 24 1.5 Act Consequentialism ........................................................................ 29 1.6 The Plan of the Book .......................................................................... 31 2. Action Guidance ....................................................................................... 33 2.1 Action Guidance: A First Take .......................................................... 33 2.2 Action Guiding for Us ........................................................................ 35 2.3 Explicit Cognitive Action Guidance .................................................. 37 2.4 Doxastic and Evidential Guidance ....................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Philosophical Quarterly, 2019
    TH E N ORM ATIVE SIGNIFICANCE OF COGN ITIVE SCIEN CE R ECONSIDERED Dustin Locke Claremont McKenna College Forthcoming in The Philosophical Quarterly Draft of 8/22/19. Please cite only with permission. Abstract Josh Greene (2007) famously argued that his cognitive-scientific results undermine deontological moral theorizing. Greene is wrong about this: at best, his research has revealed that at least some characteristically deontological moral judgments are sensitive to factors that we deem morally irrelevant. This alone is not enough to undermine those judgments. However, cognitive science could someday tell us more: it could tell us that in forming those judgments, we treat certain factors as reasons to believe as we do. If we independently deem such factors to be morally irrelevant, such a result would undermine those judgments and any moral theorizing built upon them. This paper brings charity, clarity, and epistemological sophistication to debates surrounding empirical debunking arguments in ethics. W ord Count 9,935 1 1. INTRODUCTION Josh Greene (2007) famously attempts to empirically debunk deontological moral theorizing.1 Philosophers have been highly critical of Greene’s arguments. The most widely-cited critique by far is Selim Berker (2009).2 Berker proceeds by canvasing several arguments Greene might be offering, refuting each along the way. Berker thus presents us with a challenge: since these arguments are no good, is there a better argument from cognitive-scientific results to Greene’s moral-theoretic conclusion? Other critics present us with the same challenge.3 The present paper takes up this challenge. I spell out a plausible way in which cognitive- scientific results could undermine deontological moral theorizing.
    [Show full text]
  • Michaelcv2017.Pdf
    MARK A. MICHAEL Department of History and Philosophy Austin Peay State University Clarksville, TN 37044 Degrees: Ph.D., University at Albany, State University of New York, December 1987. Dissertation: "A Defense of Donald Davidson's Theory of Events." B.A., Houghton College, May 1976 (Philosophy, Religion). Areas of Specialization: Environmental Ethics, Ethical Theory, Social and Political Philosophy Areas Of Competence: History of Modern Philosophy, Metaphysics Positions: Austin Peay State University; Department of History and Philosophy, Assistant Professor Fall 1995-2000; Associate Professor, Fall 2000-2005; Professor Fall 2005-. University of Nevada, Las Vegas; Department of Philosophy, Lecturer, Fall 1990-Spring 1995. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Department of Philosophy, Visiting Instructor, Fall 1987-Spring 1990. Siena College; Department of Philosophy, Adjunct Faculty, Fall 1989-Spring 1990. University at Albany, State University of New York; Department of Philosophy, Graduate Lecturer, Spring 1980-Spring 1983, Adjunct Faculty, Fall 1983-Spring 1990. Russell Sage College; Department of Philosophy, Adjunct Faculty, Fall 1986-Spring 1988. Junior College of Albany; Associate Degree Program for inmates in New York State Correctional Facilities, Fall 1981-Spring 1990. Books: Preserving Wildlife: An International Perspective (Amherst NY: Prometheus Press, 2000), ed. Articles: “Environmental Pragmatism, Community Values, and the Problem of Reprehensible Implications,” Environmental Ethics 38 (Fall 2016), 347-366. “The Problem with Methodological Pragmatism,” Environmental Ethics 34 (Summer 2012), 135- 157. “Utilitarianism, Obligation, and Significant Sacrifice,” in An Anthology of Philosophical Studies, Patricia Hanna, ed., (Athens, Greece: ATINER, 2008): 281-290. 2 "Is It Natural To Drive Species To Extinction?" Ethics and the Environment 10 (2005), 49-66. "What's In a Name? Pragmatism, Essentialism, and Environmental Ethics," Environmental Values 12 (2003): 361-379.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural and Economic Strategies of Modern China: in Search of the Cooperation Models Across the Global World
    Cultural and Economic Strategies of Modern China: In Search of the Cooperation Models across the Global World Denys Svyrydenko1 Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Associate Professor, Guangdong University of Petrochemical Technology (Maoming, China) E-mail: [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6126-1747 Oleksandr Stovpets2 Doctor of Philosophical Sciences (Dr. Hab. in Philosophy), Odesa National Maritime University (Odesa, Ukraine) E-mail: [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8001-4223 Svyrydenko, Denys, and Oleksandr Stovpets (2020) Cultural and Economic Strategies of Modern China: In Search of the Cooperation Models across the Global World. Future Human Image, Volume 13, 102-112. https://doi.org/10.29202/fhi/13/11 The purpose of the article is a philosophical and anthropological study of the strategic models used by modern China in the cultural and economic fields. This study is based on the explication of the essential aspects of the so-called “Chinese dream”. The key areas of cultural and economic activity of modern China are analyzed from the philosophical and anthropological positions, which are of strategic importance on the way to changing the current world geopolitical paradigm. Understanding the conceptual foundations of the evolution of Sinic civilization (headed by China) would make international relations more predictable and promising. The individual works of sinologists, cultural historians, and representatives of philosophical thought were useful for this study, in methodological terms. The scientific novelty of the study is expressed in the proposal to look at the whole array of diverse cultural, economic, geopolitical strategies used by China from the perspective of a holistic approach.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Mind, Body, and Life After Death
    The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Williams Honors College, Honors Research The Dr. Gary B. and Pamela S. Williams Honors Projects College Spring 2020 St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Mind, Body, and Life After Death Christopher Choma [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/honors_research_projects Part of the Christianity Commons, Epistemology Commons, European History Commons, History of Philosophy Commons, History of Religion Commons, Metaphysics Commons, Philosophy of Mind Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Recommended Citation Choma, Christopher, "St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Mind, Body, and Life After Death" (2020). Williams Honors College, Honors Research Projects. 1048. https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/honors_research_projects/1048 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by The Dr. Gary B. and Pamela S. Williams Honors College at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The University of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Williams Honors College, Honors Research Projects by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. 1 St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Mind, Body, and Life After Death By: Christopher Choma Sponsored by: Dr. Joseph Li Vecchi Readers: Dr. Howard Ducharme Dr. Nathan Blackerby 2 Table of Contents Introduction p. 4 Section One: Three General Views of Human Nature p.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change, Consequentialism, and the Road Ahead
    Chicago Journal of International Law Volume 13 Number 2 Article 8 1-1-2013 Climate Change, Consequentialism, and the Road Ahead Dale Jamieson Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cjil Recommended Citation Jamieson, Dale (2013) "Climate Change, Consequentialism, and the Road Ahead," Chicago Journal of International Law: Vol. 13: No. 2, Article 8. Available at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cjil/vol13/iss2/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Climate Change, Consequentialism, and the Road Ahead Dale Jamieson* Abstract In this paperI tell the stoy of the evolution of the climate change regime, locating its origins in "the dream of Rio," which supposed that the nations of the world would join in addressing the interlocking crises of environment and development. I describe the failure at Copenhagen and then go on to discuss the "reboot" of the climate negoiations advocated by Eric A. Posner and David Weisbach. I bring out some ambiguides in their notion of InternationalPareianism, which is supposed to effectively limit the influence of moral ideals in internationalaffairs, and pose a dilemma. I go on to discuss the foundations of their views regarding climate justice, arguing that the most reasonable understandings of their favored theoretical views would not lead to some of their conclusions. Finaly, I return to the climate regime, and make some observations about the road ahead, concluding thatfor theforeseeable future the most important climate change action will be within countries rather than among them.
    [Show full text]
  • Kant's Doctrine of Religion As Political Philosophy
    Kant's Doctrine of Religion as Political Philosophy Author: Phillip David Wodzinski Persistent link: http://hdl.handle.net/2345/987 This work is posted on eScholarship@BC, Boston College University Libraries. Boston College Electronic Thesis or Dissertation, 2009 Copyright is held by the author, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise noted. Boston College The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Department of Political Science KANT’S DOCTRINE OF RELIGION AS POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY a dissertation by PHILLIP WODZINSKI submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2009 © copyright by PHILLIP DAVID WODZINSKI 2009 ABSTRACT Kant’s Doctrine of Religion as Political Philosophy Phillip Wodzinski Advisor: Susan Shell, Ph.D. Through a close reading of Immanuel Kant’s late book, Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason, the dissertation clarifies the political element in Kant’s doctrine of religion and so contributes to a wider conception of his political philosophy. Kant’s political philosophy of religion, in addition to extending and further animating his moral doctrine, interprets religion in such a way as to give the Christian faith a moral grounding that will make possible, and even be an agent of, the improvement of social and political life. The dissertation emphasizes the wholeness and structure of Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason as a book, for the teaching of the book is not exhausted by the articulation of its doctrine but also includes both the fact and the manner of its expression: the reader learns most fully from Kant by giving attention to the structure and tone of the book as well as to its stated content and argumentation.
    [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]
  • Universalist Ethics in Extraterrestrial Encounter Seth D
    Universalist Ethics in Extraterrestrial Encounter Seth D. Baum, http://sethbaum.com Department of Geography & Rock Ethics Institute, Pennsylvania State University Published in: Acta Astronautica, 2010, 66(3-4): 617-623 Abstract If humanity encounters an extraterrestrial civilization, or if two extraterrestrial civilizations encounter each other, then the outcome may depend not only on the civilizations’ relative strength to destroy each other but also on what ethics are held by one or both civilizations. This paper explores outcomes of encounter scenarios in which one or both civilizations hold a universalist ethical framework. Several outcomes are possible in such scenarios, ranging from one civilization destroying the other to both civilizations racing to be the first to commit suicide. Thus, attention to the ethics of both humanity and extraterrestrials is warranted in human planning for such an encounter. Additionally, the possibility of such an encounter raises profound questions for contemporary human ethics, even if such an encounter never occurs. Keywords: extraterrestrials, ethics, universalism 1. Introduction To date, humanity has never encountered extraterrestrial life, let alone an extraterrestrial civilization. However, we can also not rule out the possibility that such an encounter will occur. Indeed, insights from the Drake equation (see e.g. [1]) suggest that such an encounter may be likely. As human exploration of space progresses, such an encounter may become increasingly likely. Thus analysis of what would happen in the event of an extraterrestrial encounter is of considerable significance. This analysis is particularly important for the astronautics community to consider given that it is on the leading edge of space exploration.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pandemic Doesn't Run on Trolley Tracks: a Comment on Eyal's Essay
    Special Feature “Society after COVID-19” Sociologica. V.14 N.2 (2020) https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1971-8853/11412 ISSN 1971-8853 The Pandemic Doesn’t Run on Trolley Tracks: A Comment on Eyal’s Essay “Beware the Trolley Zealots” Cansu Canca* Submitted: July 26, 2020 – Accepted: July 27, 2020 – Published: September 18, 2020 Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic raises various ethical questions, one of which is the question of when and how countries should move from lockdown to reopening. In his paper “Be- ware the Trolley Zealots” (2020), Gil Eyal looks at this question, arguing against a trolley problem approach and utilitarian reasoning. In this commentary, I show that his position suffers from misunderstanding the proposed policies and the trolley problem and assert- ing moral conclusions without moral justifications. Keywords: Coronavirus; COVID-19; health policy; population-level bioethics; trolley problem; utilitarianism. Acknowledgements For their very helpful comments and feedback, I thank Elena Esposito, Laura Haaber Ihle, Holger Spamann, and David Stark. * AI Ethics Lab, Boston (United States); [email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0121- 3094 Copyright © 2020 Cansu Canca Art. #11412 The text in this work is licensed under the Creative Commons BY License. p. 73 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ The Pandemic Doesn’t Run on Trolley Tracks Sociologica. V.14 N.2 (2020) 1 Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic forces policy makers around the world to make ethically loaded de- cisions about the lives and well-being of individuals. One such decision is often presented as a choice between “saving lives and saving the economy” (Bazelon, 2020).
    [Show full text]
  • March, 12. Utilitarianism 1. Ethical Utilitarianism = Consequentialism + Utilitarianism + Hedonism + Social Principle Consequent
    March, 12. Utilitarianism 1. Ethical utilitarianism = consequentialism + utilitarianism + hedonism + social principle Consequentialism: whether an act is morally right depends only on consequences (as opposed to the circumstances or the intrinsic nature of the act or anything that happens before the act). Utilitarianism: whether an consequence is valuable depends only on its utility Hedonic principle: a pleasure is the only value; whether an act is useful depends on its connection with pleasure (happiness consists in pleasures) Social principle: we must consider whether our action produces “social” happiness (not only happiness of some individuals) Utilitarianism (consequentialism) versus deontologism Deontologism: whether an act is morally good depends on its internal qualities (intention, purpose, compatibility with duty and obligation, compatibility with values) “Classic utilitarianism is consequentialist as opposed to deontological because of what it denies. It denies that moral rightness depends directly on anything other than consequences, such as whether the agent promised in the past to do the act now. Of course, the fact that the agent promised to do the act might indirectly affect the act's consequences if breaking the promise will make other people unhappy. Nonetheless, according to classic utilitarianism, what makes it morally wrong to break the promise is its future effects on those other people rather than the fact that the agent promised in the past.” SEP (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism) „Actual Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on the actual consequences (as opposed to foreseen, foreseeable, intended, or likely consequences). Direct Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act itself (as opposed to the consequences of the agent's motive, of a rule or practice that covers other acts of the same kind, and so on).
    [Show full text]
  • The Legacy of Sovereign
    LegacySovereignJoy.48134.int.qxd 9/21/07 10:01 AM Page 1 T HE L EGACY OF S OVEREIGN J OY LegacySovereignJoy.48134.int.qxd 9/21/07 10:01 AM Page 2 OTHER BOOKS BY THE AUTHOR The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1–23 2nd Edition (Baker Book House, 1993, orig. 1983) The Supremacy of God in Preaching (Baker Book House, 1990) The Pleasures of God: Meditations on God’s Delight in Being God (Multnomah Press, 1991) Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (edited with Wayne Grudem, Crossway Books, 1991) What’s the Difference? Manhood and Womanhood Defined According to the Bible (Crossway Books, 1991) Let the Nations Be Glad: The Supremacy of God in Missions (Baker Book House, 1993) The Purifying Power of Living by Faith in Future Grace (Multnomah Press, 1995) Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist (Multnomah Press, revised 1996) A Hunger for God: Desiring God through Fasting and Prayer (Crossway Books, 1997) A Godward Life: Savoring the Supremacy of God in All of Life (Multnomah Press, 1997) God’s Passion for His Glory: Living the Vision of Jonathan Edwards (Crossway Books, 1998) The Innkeeper (Crossway Books, 1998) A Godward Life, Book Two: Savoring the Supremacy of God in All of Life (Multnomah Press, 1999) LegacySovereignJoy.48134.int.qxd 9/21/07 10:01 AM Page 3 s a r e n a n o t w s s i l e e n h t t BOOK ONE LegTHEacy of Sovereign Joy God’s Triumphant Grace in the Lives of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin J OHN P IPER CROSSWAY BOOKS A PUBLISHING MINISTRY OF GOOD NEWS PUBLISHERS WHEAT O N , ILLINO IS LegacySovereignJoy.48134.int.qxd 9/21/07 10:01 AM Page 4 The Legacy of Sovereign Joy Copyright © 2000 by John Piper Published by Crossway Books a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers 1300 Crescent Street Wheaton, Illinois 60187 All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]