Dutilitarianism

Martin Peterson
{"title":"Dutilitarianism","authors":"Martin Peterson","doi":"10.1007/s44204-025-00266-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Dutilitarianism is the view that the most plausible theory of normative ethics is a compromise between utilitarianism and duty ethics. I discuss several proposals for how to spell out the dutilitarian theory and point out that a version of Arrow's impossibility theorem is applicable: Any attempt to aggregate utilitarianism and duty ethics into a dutilitarian theory will turn either the utilitarian or the deontological theory into a \"dictator theory\" that unilaterally determines the ranking of the hybrid theory, provided that a small number of seemingly plausible conditions are satisfied. However, this does not show that it is impossible to aggregate utilitarianism and duty ethics into a dutilitarian theory; a more plausible conclusion is that dutilitarians must reject one of Arrow's conditions. I argue that dutilitarians should reject the Ordering condition (rather than Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives). If so, clashes between utilitarianism and duty ethics are best understood as cases in which moral rightness and wrongness come in degrees. The article ends by considering a generalization of Arrow's theorem presented by Khmelnitskaya, which has recently been discussed in a different context by Hedden and Nebel. My gradualist approach to dutilitarianism avoids Khmelnitskaya's impossibility theorem in a manner that differs from the solution proposed by Hedden and Nebel.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian journal of philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44204-025-00266-y","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

Dutilitarianism is the view that the most plausible theory of normative ethics is a compromise between utilitarianism and duty ethics. I discuss several proposals for how to spell out the dutilitarian theory and point out that a version of Arrow's impossibility theorem is applicable: Any attempt to aggregate utilitarianism and duty ethics into a dutilitarian theory will turn either the utilitarian or the deontological theory into a "dictator theory" that unilaterally determines the ranking of the hybrid theory, provided that a small number of seemingly plausible conditions are satisfied. However, this does not show that it is impossible to aggregate utilitarianism and duty ethics into a dutilitarian theory; a more plausible conclusion is that dutilitarians must reject one of Arrow's conditions. I argue that dutilitarians should reject the Ordering condition (rather than Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives). If so, clashes between utilitarianism and duty ethics are best understood as cases in which moral rightness and wrongness come in degrees. The article ends by considering a generalization of Arrow's theorem presented by Khmelnitskaya, which has recently been discussed in a different context by Hedden and Nebel. My gradualist approach to dutilitarianism avoids Khmelnitskaya's impossibility theorem in a manner that differs from the solution proposed by Hedden and Nebel.

Dutilitarianism
功利主义认为最合理的规范伦理学理论是功利主义和责任伦理学之间的妥协。我讨论了几个关于如何阐明功利主义理论的建议,并指出阿罗的不可能性定理的一个版本是适用的:任何将功利主义和义务伦理学整合到功利主义理论中的尝试,都会使功利主义或义务论理论变成“独裁者理论”,只要满足少数看似合理的条件,就会单方面决定混合理论的等级。然而,这并不表明不可能将功利主义和责任伦理学整合为功利主义理论;一个更合理的结论是,功利主义者必须拒绝阿罗的条件之一。我认为功利主义者应该拒绝排序条件(而不是不相关选择的独立性)。如果是这样的话,功利主义和责任伦理之间的冲突最好理解为道德正确和错误的程度。本文最后考虑了赫梅利尼茨卡娅提出的阿罗定理的一个推广,最近heden和Nebel在不同的背景下讨论了这个定理。我的渐进式功利主义方法避免了赫梅利尼茨卡娅的不可能性定理,其解决方法与赫登和内贝尔提出的解决方法不同。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信