Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-wjqwx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-19T03:02:36.661Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Value Based on Preferences

On Two Interpretations of Preference Utilitarianism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Wlodek Rabinowicz  and
Jan Österberg
Wlodek Rabinowicz
Affiliation:
Lund University
Jan Österberg
Affiliation:
Uppsala University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

What distinguishes preference utilitarianism (PU) from other utilitarian positions is the axiological component: the view concerning what is intrinsically valuable. According to PU, intrinsic value is based on preferences. Intrinsically valuable states are connected to our preferences (wants, desires) being satisfied.

Type
Essays
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , April 1996 , pp. 1 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Butler, Joseph. 1900 [1729]. Fifteen Sermons Preached at the Rolls Chapel. The Works of Joseph Butler, Vol. 1. Bernard, J. H. (ed.)Google Scholar
Darwall, Stephen. 1983. Impartial Reason. Cornell University PressGoogle Scholar
Edidin, Aron. 1982. ‘Temporal neutrality and past pains’. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 20:423–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauthier, David. 1963. Practical Reasoning. Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Hare, Richard M. 1963. Freedom and Reason. Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Hume, David. 1978 [1739–1740]. A Treatise of Human Nature. Selby-Bigge, L. A. edn., revised by P. H. Nidditch, Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Hume, David. 1903 [1751]. An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. 2nd edn. by L. A. Selby-Bigge of Humes Enquiries. Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1948 [1785]. The Moral Law (Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten). Paton, H. J. (ed.). Hutchinson & CoGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine. 1983. ‘Two Distinctions in Goodness’. The Philosophical Review, 92:169–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, Isaac. 1986. Hard Choices: Decision Making under Unresolved Conflict. Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Clarence Irwing. 1946. The Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation. Open Court Publ. Co.Google Scholar
Moore, George E. 1948 [1922]. ‘The conception of intrinsic value’. In Philosophical Studies. Routledge and Kegan PaulGoogle Scholar
Morton, Adam. 1990. Disasters and Dilemmas. BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Nagel, Thomas. 1986. The View from Nowhere. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Österberg, Jan. 1990. ‘A defence of the preference satisfaction theory of intrinsic value’. DraftGoogle Scholar
Parfit, Derek. 1984. Reasons and Persons. Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Persson, Ingmar. 1990. ‘Parfit on neutrality’. Danish Yearbook of Philosophy, 25: 61–72Google Scholar
Persson, Ingmar. 1995. ‘Peter Singer on why persons are irreplaceable’. Forthcoming in UtilitasGoogle Scholar
Pettit, Philip, and Smith, Michael. 1990. ‘Backgrounding desire’. The Philosophical Review, 99:565–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowicz, Wlodzimierz. 1989. ‘Act-utilitarian prisoners' dilemmas’. Theoria, 55:1–44Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
Sen, Amartya, and Williams, Bernard. 1982. ‘Introduction’, Utilitarianism and Beyond. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Smart, J. J. C. 1961. An Outline of a System of Utilitarian Ethics. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Tännsjö, Torbjörn. 1994. Classical Hedonistic Utilitarianism: A Defence. DraftGoogle Scholar