Hey guys, this might be a basic question, but I was thinking about utilitarianism today and how it differs from common ethical intuitions. In particular, utilitarianisms response to the case of the deluded sadist might not be appealing to many people. More appealing to such people might be a form of consequentialism which, rather than being agent-neutral and based on the sentiment of universalized benevolence, would be based on providing deserving consequences based on those who deserve it. So it might be moral on such a theory to maximize the utility of good agents and minimize the utility of bad agents. Such a theory seems similar to meritocracy, except applied on a personal level as opposed to a political/social level, and I am curious as to if such a theory could stand intellectual scrutiny without collapsing into either utilitarianism or some form of virtue ethics. Can anyone point me towards a philosophical discussion of such a theory, if it exists? And given that utilitarianism rejects meritocratic benevolence in favor of universal benevolence, why do you personally prefer the utilitarian theory?
Posted on: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 07:05:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015