Some Controversial Implications of the Three Theories

T. Tännsjö
{"title":"Some Controversial Implications of the Three Theories","authors":"T. Tännsjö","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780190946883.003.0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Utilitarianism, the maximin/leximin theory, egalitarianism, and prioritarianism all come with, on the face of it, plausible rationales. However, these theories are inconsistent with one another, so they cannot all be true. It is of note, also, that each of them comes with some problematic implications. In particular, according to utilitarianism there are fewer reasons to extend the life of an unhappy person than the life of a happy person. Hence it has been thought to discriminate against disability. On the maximin/leximin theory, on the other hand, those who are worst off may seem to have a morally legitimate claim on all the good things in life (they become what is here nicknamed as ‘utility thieves’). Egalitarianism implies that levelling down to a situation where everyone is on the same low level of happiness means, at least in one respect, an improvement. Moreover, egalitarianism is insensitive in relation to momentary suffering. Prioritarianism does take suffering seriously, but apart from this it shares the standard problems with utilitarianism, which is only to be expected, since it is here seen as a mere amendment to utilitarianism.","PeriodicalId":422224,"journal":{"name":"Setting Health-Care Priorities","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Setting Health-Care Priorities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780190946883.003.0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Utilitarianism, the maximin/leximin theory, egalitarianism, and prioritarianism all come with, on the face of it, plausible rationales. However, these theories are inconsistent with one another, so they cannot all be true. It is of note, also, that each of them comes with some problematic implications. In particular, according to utilitarianism there are fewer reasons to extend the life of an unhappy person than the life of a happy person. Hence it has been thought to discriminate against disability. On the maximin/leximin theory, on the other hand, those who are worst off may seem to have a morally legitimate claim on all the good things in life (they become what is here nicknamed as ‘utility thieves’). Egalitarianism implies that levelling down to a situation where everyone is on the same low level of happiness means, at least in one respect, an improvement. Moreover, egalitarianism is insensitive in relation to momentary suffering. Prioritarianism does take suffering seriously, but apart from this it shares the standard problems with utilitarianism, which is only to be expected, since it is here seen as a mere amendment to utilitarianism.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
三大理论的一些有争议的含义
从表面上看,功利主义、极大化/极大化理论、平均主义和优先主义都有合理的理由。然而,这些理论彼此不一致,所以它们不可能都是正确的。值得注意的是,它们中的每一个都伴随着一些有问题的含义。特别是,根据功利主义,延长一个不快乐的人的寿命的理由比延长一个快乐的人的寿命的理由要少。因此,它被认为是对残疾的歧视。另一方面,在maximin/leximin理论中,那些最穷的人似乎在道德上合法地要求得到生活中所有美好的东西(他们成为这里被称为“效用窃贼”的人)。平均主义意味着,每个人都处于同样低的幸福水平意味着,至少在一个方面,一种进步。此外,平等主义对暂时的痛苦是不敏感的。优先主义确实认真对待痛苦,但除此之外,它与功利主义有同样的标准问题,这是意料之中的,因为它在这里被视为对功利主义的一种修正。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Triage in Situations of Mass Casualty Some Controversial Implications of the Three Theories Population Ethics Egalitarianism Prioritarianism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1