Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 9

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  UTILITARIANISM
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Content available remote

Personalizm etyczny. Różnice i podobieństwa w relacji do personalizmu tradycyjnego

100%
Czekajewska J.
Filo-Sofija
|
2008
|
vol. 8
|
issue 8
179-188
EN
Personalism is commonly thought of as one of the most important standpoints in the history of ethical thought. Nevertheless, it is difficult to give a precise definition of the term due to numerous and often intermingling varieties of personalistic thought, for example, Christian, radical, or liberal personalism, to mention a few. The aim of the present paper is a more detailed analysis of personalistic theory. The problem is important as personalism, next to utilitarianism, is one of the most influential ethical currents nowadays.
2

Tabloidyzacja mediów a jej korzenie we współczesnej filozofii i myśli politycznej

100%
Malina Ł.
Dziennikarstwo i Media
|
2010
|
vol. 1
67-79
EN
Utilitarianism, the philosophy of common sense propagated since the times of John Stuart Mill, is one of the arguments supporting tabloid media and their message which is focused on scandals, emotions and a simplified picture of the world. The author concentrates on the search for arguments that confirm the thesis that there is a need for tabloid media to exist. He looks for the reasons behind the tabloidisation of the media message in general and finds that the decline in the quality of mass media message is caused by the primitivism, vulgarisation and scandalisation of modern culture. The author concludes that the main reason of media tabloidisation is the pornographisation of media communication.
3

PROBLÉM ZALOŽENÍ A LEGITIMIZACE LIDSKÝCH PRÁV

100%
Vacura M.
Filozofia (Philosophy)
|
2020
|
vol. 75
|
issue 7
513 – 526
EN
Human rights are currently the subject of several complex questions that are political, social, or legal in its nature. In order to address these problems meaningfully, we must take also into account a more general philosophical context and we should have a clearer idea of what human rights are and on what foundations they are based. In the study, we discuss whether we currently have a fully philosophically based conception of the foundation and legitimization of human rights. We present various current approaches that are candidates for solving this problem and we offer their critical evaluation. The starting point for us is the idea of human rights as obvious truths and approaches derived from it based on rational or emotional evidence. We also deal with the possibility of establishment of human rights utilizing concept of natural law, utilitarian approaches, and conceptions based on the idea of dignity. Some other related theories and historical contexts of the analysed conceptions are also briefly mentioned. We wrap up the text with conclusion that a completely satisfactory philosophical theory of human rights is still not available, and we also put forward our recommendations for solving the presented problems of the investigated theories.
4

PETER SINGER AND UTILITARIANISM

100%
Buckle S.
Etyka (Ethics)
|
2006
|
issue 39
72-86
EN
The paper argues that Peter Singer's argument for utilitarianism is a failure, and that repairing the argument requires learning from the lesson of Rousseau and Kant. It points out that, like Singer, Rousseau's argument for the social contract comes unstuck because he cannot keep together his self-interested starting point (natural man) and his civic-minded conclusion. It then shows that Kant solved Rousseau's problem by building his civic man back into his natural man, to give a morality-friendly conception of human nature - and that, to solve his problem, Singer must do something comparable. It is further argued that the problematic starting point in self-interest reflects the influence of (some form of) evolutionary naturalism in both thinkers - but that it is a mistake to suppose that evolutionary naturalism requires such a starting point. So Singer can amend his argument without betraying its spirit - but his preference utilitarian conclusion cannot be guaranteed to be immune to the effects of such amendments.
5

LIFE'S VALUE - RELATIVE OR ABSOLUTE

100%
Wolniewicz B.
Edukacja Filozoficzna
|
2008
|
issue 46
47-58
EN
In the text the author asks a question: Is life the supreme value? That claim is discussed and found wanting. As the main principle of utilitarianism it admits of two incompatible interpretations called here the 'biotic' and the 'hedonic' one, respectively - the former base and common, the latter noble and rare.
6

UTILITARIAN IMPARTIALITY AND CONTEMPORARY DARWINISM

100%
Bracanovic T.
Filozofia (Philosophy)
|
2007
|
vol. 62
|
issue 1
14-26
EN
The first draft of this article was presented in December 2002 at the Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research (Altenberg, Austria), as part of author's research project on the evolutionary perspective on human nature and ethics. Its second draft was presented at a conference entitled „Freedom and Equality in Contemporary Philosophy“, organized by the Society for the Advancement of Philosophy in Samobor (Croatia) in June 2005. The author thanks both audiences for their constructive discussions. One important component of utilitarian ethical framework is a specific version of the principle of impartiality. The principle claims that one should bring about the greatest possible overall utility or happiness and that our moral and morally relevant actions ought to result from objective and neutral deliberations, with all our personal interests, likes and dislikes left out. Drowing on relevant insights from sociobiology and evolutionary psychology this paper seeks to show that utilitarian principle of impartiality is seriously endangered by two interconnected Darwinian facts: (1) the fact that human biologically shaped psychology and motivation mechanisms do not fit well with the principle requiring the indiscriminate promotion of general happiness, and (2) the fact that human beings are individuals with naturally evolved personal desires, projects and ideals, and not merely spare parts of some general utilitarian clockwork of happiness.
7

UTILITARIZMUS AKO PRAKTICKÁ VOĽBA S EMPIRICKOU PODPOROU V ETIKE JOSHUU GREENA – KRITICKÁ REFLEXIA

88%
Spodniak S.
Filozofia (Philosophy)
|
2021
|
vol. 76
|
issue 6
451 – 464
EN
The aim of this paper is to critically analyse Joshua Greene’s arguments in favour of utilitarianism and against deontology. There are two main arguments with which Greene supports his utilitarian ethical position. The first is meta-ethical argument, which redefines the purpose of ethics as a search for those moral norms and principles that fulfil our practical need to resolve moral conflicts in the most successful way. The second argument is based on Greene’s psychological research on trolley problems. The thesis of this paper is that the stated arguments do not sufficiently justify favouring utilitarianism over deontology. It is an unjustified belief that the aim of ethics should be the search for the most successful way to resolve moral conflicts. There is at least one alternative position, according to which the role of ethics is to find the best way to deal with human vulnerability and dependence on other members of society. Acceptance of this interpretation of ethics would inevitably lead to acceptance of the deontological language of appeals to moral duties and obligations, which Greene rejects.
8
Content available remote

THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS AND UTILITARIANISM. A REPLY TO WLODEK RABINOWICZ'S PREFERENCE UTILITARIANISM BY WAY OF PREFERENCE CHANGE? (Eksperymenty myslowe a utylitaryzm. Odpowiedz na artykul Wlodka Rabinowicza)

88%
Saja K.
Analiza i Egzystencja. Czasopismo Filozoficzne
|
2010
|
issue 12
39-60
EN
This article is a comment on Wlodek Rabinowicz Utilitarianism by Way of Preference Change?, in which I defend Richard Hare's argument for utilitarianism. I argue that Hare's role reversal thought experiments can, despite of Rabinowicz's criticism, lead to transforming interpersonal preference conflicts into intrapersonal ones, but, in order to achieve this, we need to interpret his thought experiment correctly. I distinguish three interpretation of reversing roles experiment and argue, that for at least two of them, which de facto Hare endorse, Rabinowicz criticism fails.
9
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

WAGE INEQUALITIES FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF JUST DISTRIBUTION

88%
Beata R.
Zarządzanie Zasobami Ludzkimi
|
2010
|
issue 2(73)
49-70
PL
Nierówności wynagrodzeń na rynku pracy mogą być rozpatrywane z różnych punktów widzenia, np.: ekonomicznego, społecznego lub etycznego. Celem niniejszej pracy jest przedstawienie etycznego uzasadnienia nierówności wynagrodzeń z perspektywy teorii sprawiedliwości dystrybutywnej. W poszukiwaniu odpowiedzi na pytanie, jak wielkie nierówności w wynagrodzeniach postrzegane są za sprawiedliwe, zostaną zaprezentowane trzy stanowiska. Pierwsze z nich, reprezentowane przez Friedricha von Hayeka, jednego z największych zwolenników mechanizmu rynkowego, podważa zasadność mówienia o sprawiedliwości dystrybutywnej w gospodarce rynkowej. Drugie, wypracowane na gruncie teorii utylitarystycznych, odpowiadając na pytanie o sprawiedliwość nierówności wynagrodzeń, koncentruje uwagę na konsekwencjach, do których one prowadzą. Trzecie, uzasadniane zarówno egalitarystyczną teorią sprawiedliwości dystrybutywnej Johna Rawlsa, jak i odmienną od niej libertariańską teorią Roberta Nozicka, przekonuje, że o sprawiedliwości podziału decydują nie jego konsekwencje, lecz zasady, na podstawie których do niego doszło.
EN
Wages inequalities can be investigated from various points of view - economic, social, and ethical. This paper examines the ethics of inequalities in wages. Three leading theories of distributive justice - utilitarianism, libertarianism, Rawlsian egalitarianism - as well as Hayek's approach are applied to investigate the question of justice in high levels of inequality. The conclusion is that neither the theories of distributive justice nor Hayek's approach, justify the high level of inequalities.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.