Please note: In order to keep Hive up to date and provide users with the best features, we are no longer able to fully support Internet Explorer. The site is still available to you, however some sections of the site may appear broken. We would encourage you to move to a more modern browser like Firefox, Edge or Chrome in order to experience the site fully.

Doing the Best We Can : An Essay in Informal Deontic Logic, PDF eBook

Doing the Best We Can : An Essay in Informal Deontic Logic PDF

Part of the Philosophical Studies Series series

PDF

Please note: eBooks can only be purchased with a UK issued credit card and all our eBooks (ePub and PDF) are DRM protected.

Description

Several years ago I came across a marvelous little paper in which Hector-Neri Castaneda shows that standard versions of act utilitarian- l ism are formally incoherent.

I was intrigued by his argument. It had long seemed to me that I had a firm grasp on act utilitarianism.

Indeed, it had often seemed to me that it was the clearest and most attractive of normative theories.

Yet here was a simple and relatively uncontrover- sial argument that showed, with only some trivial assumptions, that the doctrine is virtually unintelligible.

The gist of Castaneda's argument is this: suppose we understand act utilitarianism to be the view that an act is obligatory if and only if its utility exceeds that of each alternative.

Suppose it is obligatory for a certain person to perform an act with two parts - we can call it 'A & B'.

Then, obviously enough, it is also obligatory for this person to perform the parts, A and B.

If act utilitarianism were true, we appar- ently could infer that the utility of A & B is higher than that of A, and higher than that of B (because A & B is obligatory, and the other acts are alternatives to A & B).

Information

Information

Also in the Philosophical Studies Series series  |  View all