Canadian Journal of Philosophy 13 (2):241 - 242 (1983)
AbstractNg and singer derive the principle of utility from the fact of finite sensibility and another principle, weak majority preference: "for a community of n individuals choosing between two possibilities, x and y, if no individual prefers y to x, and at least n/2 individuals prefer x to y, then x increases social welfare and is preferable." this derivation is regarded as incorrect in a comment. this reply explains why the derivation is valid and shows that the comment is based on confusing a general social ordering with a utilitarian one
Similar books and articles
An Argument for Utilitarianism.Yew-Kwang Ng & Peter Singer - 1981 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 11 (2):229 - 239.
An Argument for Utilitarianism: A Defence.Yew-Kwang Ng & Peter Singer - 1990 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 68 (4):448 – 454.
Actual Consequence Utilitarianism: A Reply to Professor Singer.Jack Temkin - 1978 - Mind 87 (347):412-414.
Peter Singer's Argument for Utilitarianism.Stephen Buckle - 2005 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 26 (3):175-194.
Singer, Moore, and the Metaphysics of Morals.Jack Temkin - 1984 - Philosophy Research Archives 10:567-571.
Ethics and Intuitions: A Reply to Singer.Joakim Sandberg & Niklas Juth - 2011 - The Journal of Ethics 15 (3):209-226.
Moral Psychology And Moral Intuition: A Pox On All Your Houses.Kelby Mason - 2011 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89 (3):441-458.
Singer on Killing and the Preference for Life.Michael Lockwood - 1979 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 22 (1-4):157 – 170.
Assessing Peter Singer’s Argument for Utilitarianism: Drawing a Lesson From Rousseau and Kant. [REVIEW]Stephen Buckle - 2011 - Journal of Value Inquiry 45 (2):215-227.
Review of Peter Singer, The Life You Can Save. [REVIEW]Anthony Skelton - 2009 - The Globe and Mail: F11.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads