Grenzen für den Utilitarismus. Ein transzendentales Gegenargument

In Wolfram Hogrebe (ed.), Grenzen und Grenzüberschreitungen: XIX. Deutscher Kongress für Philosophie, Bonn, 23.-27. September 2002 : Vorträge und Kolloquien. Sinclair Press. pp. 107-115 (2002)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Let us imagine an ideal ethical agent, i.e., an agent who (i) holds a certain ethical theory, (ii) has all factual knowledge needed for determining which action among those open to her is right and which is wrong, according to her theory, and who (iii) is ideally motivated to really do whatever her ethical theory demands her to do (even when she speaks). If we grant that the notions of omniscience and ideal motivation both make sense, we may ask: Could there possibly be an ideal utilitarian, that is, an ideal ethical agent whose ethical theory says that our only moral obligation consists in maximizing utility? I claim that an ideal agent cannot be utilitarian. An ideal utilitarian cannot entertain or communicate the beliefs necessary to being a utilitarian. For if every speech act from her mouth maximizes utility, she cannot be interpreted to utter assertions at all. Her very moral theory undermines the conditions necessary for entertaining it.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

What the Utilitarian Cannot Think.Mark T. Nelson - 2015 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 18 (4):717-729.

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-04-25

Downloads
244 (#111,341)

6 months
56 (#98,533)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Olaf L. Müller
Humboldt University, Berlin

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Word and Object.Willard Van Orman Quine - 1960 - Les Etudes Philosophiques 17 (2):278-279.

Add more references