契约主义与社会风险

IF 2.1 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
J. Frick
{"title":"契约主义与社会风险","authors":"J. Frick","doi":"10.1111/PAPA.12058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Contemporary nonconsequentialism is a family of views united less by a positive doctrine than by skepticism toward central tenets of consequentialist ethical thought. One such tenet, which is embraced by most consequentialists but opposed by many nonconsequentialists, is the notion of interpersonal aggregation. Ethical theories, like classical utilitarianism, that defend interpersonal aggregation hold that in evaluating an action, we should sum the benefits and losses it imposes on different people to obtain an aggregate quantity; this represents the overall goodness of the action’s consequences. The rightness or wrongness of the action depends not on how it affects each individual, but on the net balance of benefits over losses. Aggregative reasoning of this kind often yields counterintuitive implications, especially in cases where it enjoins us to let a few people suffer","PeriodicalId":47999,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Public Affairs","volume":"43 1","pages":"175-223"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2015-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/PAPA.12058","citationCount":"76","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Contractualism and Social Risk\",\"authors\":\"J. Frick\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/PAPA.12058\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Contemporary nonconsequentialism is a family of views united less by a positive doctrine than by skepticism toward central tenets of consequentialist ethical thought. One such tenet, which is embraced by most consequentialists but opposed by many nonconsequentialists, is the notion of interpersonal aggregation. Ethical theories, like classical utilitarianism, that defend interpersonal aggregation hold that in evaluating an action, we should sum the benefits and losses it imposes on different people to obtain an aggregate quantity; this represents the overall goodness of the action’s consequences. The rightness or wrongness of the action depends not on how it affects each individual, but on the net balance of benefits over losses. Aggregative reasoning of this kind often yields counterintuitive implications, especially in cases where it enjoins us to let a few people suffer\",\"PeriodicalId\":47999,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy & Public Affairs\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"175-223\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/PAPA.12058\",\"citationCount\":\"76\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy & Public Affairs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/PAPA.12058\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy & Public Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/PAPA.12058","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 76

摘要

当代非结果主义是一个观点家族,与其说是由一个积极的学说联合起来,不如说是由对结果主义伦理思想中心原则的怀疑主义联合起来。其中一个原则是人际聚合的概念,它被大多数结果主义者所接受,但被许多非结果主义者所反对。与古典功利主义一样,捍卫人际聚合的伦理理论认为,在评估一项行为时,我们应该把它给不同人带来的利益和损失加起来,以获得一个总量;这代表了行动结果的整体好坏。行为的正确与否不取决于它对每个人的影响,而取决于得失的净平衡。这种综合推理通常会产生违反直觉的含义,特别是在它要求我们让少数人受苦的情况下
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Contractualism and Social Risk
Contemporary nonconsequentialism is a family of views united less by a positive doctrine than by skepticism toward central tenets of consequentialist ethical thought. One such tenet, which is embraced by most consequentialists but opposed by many nonconsequentialists, is the notion of interpersonal aggregation. Ethical theories, like classical utilitarianism, that defend interpersonal aggregation hold that in evaluating an action, we should sum the benefits and losses it imposes on different people to obtain an aggregate quantity; this represents the overall goodness of the action’s consequences. The rightness or wrongness of the action depends not on how it affects each individual, but on the net balance of benefits over losses. Aggregative reasoning of this kind often yields counterintuitive implications, especially in cases where it enjoins us to let a few people suffer
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
3.90
自引率
4.50%
发文量
23
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信