Advanced search options

Advanced Search Options 🞨

Browse by author name (“Author name starts with…”).

Find ETDs with:

in
/  
in
/  
in
/  
in

Written in Published in Earliest date Latest date

Sorted by

Results per page:

Sorted by: relevance · author · university · dateNew search

You searched for subject:(rule utilitarianism). Showing records 1 – 2 of 2 total matches.

Search Limiters

Last 2 Years | English Only

No search limiters apply to these results.

▼ Search Limiters


Texas A&M University

1. Wright, David. John Stuart Mill's Sanction Utilitarianism: A Philosophical and Historical Interpretation.

Degree: 2014, Texas A&M University

This dissertation argues for a particular interpretation of John Stuart Mill?s utilitarianism, namely that Mill is best read as a sanction utilitarian. In general, scholars commonly interpret Mill as some type of act or rule utilitarian. In making their case for these interpretations, it is also common for scholars to use large portions of Mill?s Utilitarianism as the chief source of insight into his moral theory. By contrast, I argue that Utilitarianism is best read as an ecumenical text where Mill explains and defends the general tenets of utilitarianism rather than setting out his own preferred theory. The exception to this ecumenical approach to the text comes in the fifth chapter on justice which, I argue on textual and historical grounds, outlines the central features of Mill?s utilitarianism. With this understanding of Utilitarianism in place, many of the passages commonly cited in favor of the previous interpretations are rendered less plausible, and interpretations emphasizing Mill?s other writings are strengthened. Using this methodology, I critique four of the most prominent act or rule utilitarian interpretations of Mill?s moral theory. I then provide an interpretation of Mill?s theory of moral obligation and utilitarianism. On Mill?s account of moral obligation (which purportedly holds for moral theories generally, not just utilitarianism) there is a tight relation between an action being wrong and it being subject to punishment by an agent?s conscience. The utilitarian aspect of Mill?s theory concerns the role of rules in an agent?s conscience. According to Mill?s sanction utilitarian view, the actions that are punished are those actions that violate the moral rules which, if widely internalized across society, would promote general utility. On this account, an action is wrong when an agent violates a justified moral rule and is properly punished, at least by one?s conscience. An action is right when conditions are such that if the action were not performed, then the action would be properly punished by at least the agent?s conscience. I apply this interpretation to other notable components of Mill?s approach such as his account of practical action (the Art of Life) and his theory of liberty. Advisors/Committee Members: Radzik, Linda (advisor), Palmer, Clare (committee member), Austin, Scott (committee member), Adams, R.J.Q. (committee member).

Subjects/Keywords: J.S. Mill; utilitarianism; rule utilitarianism; act utilitarianism; sanction utilitarianism; Roger Crisp; Fred Berger; Alan Fuchs; J.O. Urmson; Daniel Jacobson; 'On Liberty'; 'Utilitarianism'

Record DetailsSimilar RecordsGoogle PlusoneFacebookTwitterCiteULikeMendeleyreddit

APA · Chicago · MLA · Vancouver · CSE | Export to Zotero / EndNote / Reference Manager

APA (6th Edition):

Wright, D. (2014). John Stuart Mill's Sanction Utilitarianism: A Philosophical and Historical Interpretation. (Thesis). Texas A&M University. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/152774

Note: this citation may be lacking information needed for this citation format:
Not specified: Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation

Chicago Manual of Style (16th Edition):

Wright, David. “John Stuart Mill's Sanction Utilitarianism: A Philosophical and Historical Interpretation.” 2014. Thesis, Texas A&M University. Accessed August 07, 2020. http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/152774.

Note: this citation may be lacking information needed for this citation format:
Not specified: Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation

MLA Handbook (7th Edition):

Wright, David. “John Stuart Mill's Sanction Utilitarianism: A Philosophical and Historical Interpretation.” 2014. Web. 07 Aug 2020.

Vancouver:

Wright D. John Stuart Mill's Sanction Utilitarianism: A Philosophical and Historical Interpretation. [Internet] [Thesis]. Texas A&M University; 2014. [cited 2020 Aug 07]. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/152774.

Note: this citation may be lacking information needed for this citation format:
Not specified: Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation

Council of Science Editors:

Wright D. John Stuart Mill's Sanction Utilitarianism: A Philosophical and Historical Interpretation. [Thesis]. Texas A&M University; 2014. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/152774

Note: this citation may be lacking information needed for this citation format:
Not specified: Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation

2. Wright, Thomas. Subjectivity and Fallibility in the Instrumental and Epistemic Defenses of a "Right to Do Wrong".

Degree: MA, Philosophy, 2010, Georgia State University

An instrumental defense of a right to do wrong is plausible because we cannot directly intervene in an individual's choices so as to effectively promote that individual's moral good, if her moral good is conceived as being some form of individual autonomy. An epistemic defense is also plausible if we reorient J.S. Mill's epistemological argument for his Harm Principle in "On Liberty" to center on the agent's knowledge, rather than on the interfering observer's knowledge. Restrictions on harmless acts that are imposed because the acts are wrong are only justifiable to that individual if she herself knows that her acts are wrong. Both approaches depend upon the limited subjectivity and fallibility of the agent or interfering observer. Moreover, both approaches make the justification for a right to knowingly do wrong problematic. Advisors/Committee Members: William A Edmundson - Committee Chair, George Rainbolt - Committee Member, Peter Lindsay - Committee Member.

Subjects/Keywords: Waldron; Rule utilitarianism; Right to do wrong; On Liberty; Moral rights; Mill; Instrumental defense of rights; Epistemic defense of rights; Fallibility; Philosophy

…of rule or "indirect" utilitarianism, which may be no accident, as Waldron may be… …acts proposed in the counterexamples. Rule or indirect 7 utilitarianism then holds that… …way of resolving moral conflict,10 a problem that rule utilitarianism ameliorates but cannot… …completely avoid.11 Just as rule utilitarianism depends upon insulating its general rules from a… …moral right that as a rule does serve it. For example, the traditional liberal moral right of… 

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7

Record DetailsSimilar RecordsGoogle PlusoneFacebookTwitterCiteULikeMendeleyreddit

APA · Chicago · MLA · Vancouver · CSE | Export to Zotero / EndNote / Reference Manager

APA (6th Edition):

Wright, T. (2010). Subjectivity and Fallibility in the Instrumental and Epistemic Defenses of a "Right to Do Wrong". (Thesis). Georgia State University. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/philosophy_theses/67

Note: this citation may be lacking information needed for this citation format:
Not specified: Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation

Chicago Manual of Style (16th Edition):

Wright, Thomas. “Subjectivity and Fallibility in the Instrumental and Epistemic Defenses of a "Right to Do Wrong".” 2010. Thesis, Georgia State University. Accessed August 07, 2020. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/philosophy_theses/67.

Note: this citation may be lacking information needed for this citation format:
Not specified: Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation

MLA Handbook (7th Edition):

Wright, Thomas. “Subjectivity and Fallibility in the Instrumental and Epistemic Defenses of a "Right to Do Wrong".” 2010. Web. 07 Aug 2020.

Vancouver:

Wright T. Subjectivity and Fallibility in the Instrumental and Epistemic Defenses of a "Right to Do Wrong". [Internet] [Thesis]. Georgia State University; 2010. [cited 2020 Aug 07]. Available from: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/philosophy_theses/67.

Note: this citation may be lacking information needed for this citation format:
Not specified: Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation

Council of Science Editors:

Wright T. Subjectivity and Fallibility in the Instrumental and Epistemic Defenses of a "Right to Do Wrong". [Thesis]. Georgia State University; 2010. Available from: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/philosophy_theses/67

Note: this citation may be lacking information needed for this citation format:
Not specified: Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation

.