Should We Maximize Utility?: A Debate about Utilitarianism [Paperback]

Utilitarianism directs us to act in ways that impartially maximize welfare or utility or at least aim to do that. The two authors debate various forms of this longstanding ethical theory, arguing for very different conclusions, in a way that is sure to leave readers with new views of their own moral thoughts and lives.?

Though much excellent work has been done on understanding utilitarianism itself, and on both the attractions of and problems with it, the fundamental debate remains as intractable as ever. The state-of-the-art essays that follow bring out clearly how much progress has been made since... the early utilitarians, as well how careful and imaginative reflection can take us yet further in understanding the issues at stake and possible resolutions of them.

-?Roger Crisp,?from the Foreword

Foreword by Roger Crisp? I. Against Utilitarianism??1. Utilitarianism and its Discontents? 2. Goodness? 3. Welfare? 4. Repugnant Conclusions? 5. Intuitions? 6. Cluelessness? 7. Cluelessness and the Climate? 8. Beyond Utilitarianism??II. For Utilitarianism??1. Introduction? 2. Total or Person-Affecting Utilitarianism?? 3. Philosophy of Swine? 4. Cluelessness? 5. Reasons or Requirements?? 6. Demandingness? 7. The Alienation Objection? 8. The Harming to Help Objection? 9. Conclusion??III. Reply to Bramble??IV. Response to Lenman??Further Reading? References.? ? ?

Utilitarianism directs us to act in ways that impartially maximize welfare or utility or at least aim to do that. Some find this view highly compelling. Others object that it has intuitively repugnant results, that it condones evildoing and injustice, that it is excessively imposing and controlling, that it is alienating, and that it fails to offer meaningful, practical guidance.