无怨无悔地贴现效用:避免古典功利主义的苛求

IF 0.1 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Philosophia-International Journal of Philosophy Pub Date : 2023-09-27 DOI:10.11648/j.ijp.20231103.16
Stijn Bruers
{"title":"无怨无悔地贴现效用:避免古典功利主义的苛求","authors":"Stijn Bruers","doi":"10.11648/j.ijp.20231103.16","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Classical utilitarianism is very demanding and entails some counter-intuitive implications in moral dilemmas such as the trolley problem in deontological ethics and the repugnant conclusion in population ethics. This article presents how one specific modification of utilitarianism can avoid these counter-intuitive implications. In this modified utilitarian theory, called ‘discounted’ or ‘mild’ utilitarianism, people have a right to discount the utilities of others, under the condition that people whose utility is discounted cannot validly complain against such discounting. A complaint made by a utility discounted person is not valid if either the existence of the discounting people in that option is in a specific sense necessary or the existence of the discounted person is in a sense not necessary. According to mild utilitarianism, we should choose the option that maximizes the total validly discounted or complaint-free discounted utility, i e. the sum of everyone’s utility minus the complaint-free discounts. As there are two conditions that make a complaint invalid, this right to discount can be translated into two versions: the right to bodily autonomy and the right to procreation autonomy. The former right relates to the mere means principle in deontological ethics, the latter right is useful in avoiding the repugnant conclusion problem in population ethics. The possibility of democratically imposing an upper bound on the permissible amount of discounting is discussed.","PeriodicalId":40692,"journal":{"name":"Philosophia-International Journal of Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discounting Utility Without Complaints: Avoiding the Demandingness of Classical Utilitarianism\",\"authors\":\"Stijn Bruers\",\"doi\":\"10.11648/j.ijp.20231103.16\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Classical utilitarianism is very demanding and entails some counter-intuitive implications in moral dilemmas such as the trolley problem in deontological ethics and the repugnant conclusion in population ethics. This article presents how one specific modification of utilitarianism can avoid these counter-intuitive implications. In this modified utilitarian theory, called ‘discounted’ or ‘mild’ utilitarianism, people have a right to discount the utilities of others, under the condition that people whose utility is discounted cannot validly complain against such discounting. A complaint made by a utility discounted person is not valid if either the existence of the discounting people in that option is in a specific sense necessary or the existence of the discounted person is in a sense not necessary. According to mild utilitarianism, we should choose the option that maximizes the total validly discounted or complaint-free discounted utility, i e. the sum of everyone’s utility minus the complaint-free discounts. As there are two conditions that make a complaint invalid, this right to discount can be translated into two versions: the right to bodily autonomy and the right to procreation autonomy. The former right relates to the mere means principle in deontological ethics, the latter right is useful in avoiding the repugnant conclusion problem in population ethics. The possibility of democratically imposing an upper bound on the permissible amount of discounting is discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40692,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophia-International Journal of Philosophy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophia-International Journal of Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijp.20231103.16\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophia-International Journal of Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijp.20231103.16","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

古典功利主义要求很高,在道德困境中有一些反直觉的含义,如义务论伦理学中的电车问题和人口伦理学中的令人反感的结论。本文介绍了功利主义的一种特殊修正如何避免这些反直觉的含义。在这种被称为“贴现”或“温和”功利主义的改良功利主义理论中,人们有权贴现他人的效用,条件是效用被贴现的人不能有效地抱怨这种贴现。效用折现者的投诉是无效的如果该选项中折现者的存在在特定意义上是必要的或者折现者的存在在某种意义上是不必要的。根据温和功利主义,我们应该选择有效贴现或无投诉贴现效用最大化的选项,即每个人的效用减去无投诉折扣的总和。由于有两个条件使申诉无效,这种折扣权可以翻译为两个版本:身体自主权和生育自主权。前一种权利涉及义务伦理学中的单纯手段原则,后一种权利有助于避免人口伦理学中的排斥结论问题。讨论了民主地给允许的折扣量设定上界的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Discounting Utility Without Complaints: Avoiding the Demandingness of Classical Utilitarianism
Classical utilitarianism is very demanding and entails some counter-intuitive implications in moral dilemmas such as the trolley problem in deontological ethics and the repugnant conclusion in population ethics. This article presents how one specific modification of utilitarianism can avoid these counter-intuitive implications. In this modified utilitarian theory, called ‘discounted’ or ‘mild’ utilitarianism, people have a right to discount the utilities of others, under the condition that people whose utility is discounted cannot validly complain against such discounting. A complaint made by a utility discounted person is not valid if either the existence of the discounting people in that option is in a specific sense necessary or the existence of the discounted person is in a sense not necessary. According to mild utilitarianism, we should choose the option that maximizes the total validly discounted or complaint-free discounted utility, i e. the sum of everyone’s utility minus the complaint-free discounts. As there are two conditions that make a complaint invalid, this right to discount can be translated into two versions: the right to bodily autonomy and the right to procreation autonomy. The former right relates to the mere means principle in deontological ethics, the latter right is useful in avoiding the repugnant conclusion problem in population ethics. The possibility of democratically imposing an upper bound on the permissible amount of discounting is discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
50.00%
发文量
41
期刊最新文献
Discounting Utility Without Complaints: Avoiding the Demandingness of Classical Utilitarianism The Assemble of Olympism and Nationalism: Social Philosophical Analysis of Beijing 2022 Winter Olympic Games as Case Study Distinguishing Models of Kierkegaard’s Indirect Communication: Toward a Clearer View of a Multivalent Discourse Technique Ubuntu as an Ethical Framework in Business Ethics for African Socio-Economic Development Spinoza: Desire and Supreme Good, from Philosophizing to Wise
×
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