Difidate di questi personaggi, sono Utilitaristi

[JohnPollock]

This is an incomplete list of advocates of utilitarianism.


Per quanto alcuni di loro possano essere annovareti nell'olimpo delle loro specifiche materie di studio, prendeteli sempre con le pinze, sono sempre della specie Utilitarista.

• John Austin[1]
• Jeremy Bentham[2]
• Richard Brandt[3]
• David O. Brink[4]
• Roger Crisp
• Charles Darwin[5]
• Francis Ysidro Edgeworth[6]
• Epicurus
• Martín Diego Farrell[7]
• Fred Feldman[8]
• Jonathan Glover
• William Godwin[9]
• Dan Goldstick
• George Grote
• Esperanza Guisán[10]
• Élie Halévy
• Robin Hanson[11]
• R. M. Hare[12]
• John Harsanyi[13]
• Claude Adrien Helvétius
• Brad Hooker[14]
• David Hume
• Richard Layard[15]
• Lucretius
• James MacKaye[16]
• Harriet Taylor Mill
• James Mill
• John Stuart Mill[17]
• Ludwig von Mises
• Jan Narveson[18]
• Yew-Kwang Ng[19]
• Alastair Norcross[20]
• Adam Smith
• William Paley
• David Pearce[21]
• Philip Pettit[22]
• Karl Popper
• James Rachels
• Stuart Rachels
• David Ricardo
• Bertrand Russell[23]
• Richard D. Ryder[24]
• William Shaw[25]
• Henry Sidgwick[26]
• R. I. Sikora[27]
• Peter Singer[28]
• J. J. C. Smart[29]
• Herbert Spencer
• Timothy Sprigge[30]
• L. W. Sumner[31]
• Torbjörn Tännsjö[32]
• William Thompson
• Robert Wright[33]

P.S.
Una cosiderazione: non so come sia finito Spencer in questa lista, Spencer è un Giusnaturalista citato anche da Rothbard nella sua Etica.

[Domenico Letizia]

beh...non si può.ci sono dei mostri nella lista....

[JohnPollock]

beh...non si può.ci sono dei mostri nella lista....

The utility monster is a thought experiment in the study of ethics. It was created by philosopher Robert Nozick in 1974 as a criticism of utilitarianism.
In the thought experiment, the idea of a monster is proposed who can turn resources into his own utility far more effectively than anyone else. If one unit of resource brings "me" one unit of pleasure, one unit of resource brings the utility monster 100 units of pleasure.
If the utility monster can get so much pleasure from each unit of resources, it follows from utilitarianism that the distribution of resources should acknowledge this. If the utility monster existed, it would justify the mistreatment and perhaps annihilation of everyone else, according to the doctrine of utilitarianism.
According to the philosopher Robert Nozick:
"Utilitarian theory is embarrassed by the possibility of utility monsters who get enormously greater sums of utility from any sacrifice of others than these others lose . . . the theory seems to require that we all be sacrificed in the monster’s maw, in order to increase total utility."[1] This thought experiment attempts to show that utilitarianism is not actually egalitarian, even though it appears to be at first glance.
It is the opposite of the mere addition paradox, which argues that utilitarianism may lead to a very heavily populated dystopic world.

[JohnPollock]

beh...non si può.ci sono dei mostri nella lista....

Certo, ma alcuni solo nel loro specifico campo di studi, come Darwin o Mises.

[(Controcorrente (POL)]

beh io di mises mi fido
idem per gli altri liberali della lista

[JohnPollock]

beh io di mises mi fido
idem per gli altri liberali della lista

E di quelli non Liberali tipo Godwin? Consideri Liberale anche Mill?

[(Controcorrente (POL)]

E di quelli non Liberali tipo Godwin? Consideri Liberale anche Mill?

dei non liberali non m'importa; mill è una figura controversa

[Domenico Letizia]

The utility monster is a thought experiment in the study of ethics. It was created by philosopher Robert Nozick in 1974 as a criticism of utilitarianism.
In the thought experiment, the idea of a monster is proposed who can turn resources into his own utility far more effectively than anyone else. If one unit of resource brings "me" one unit of pleasure, one unit of resource brings the utility monster 100 units of pleasure.
If the utility monster can get so much pleasure from each unit of resources, it follows from utilitarianism that the distribution of resources should acknowledge this. If the utility monster existed, it would justify the mistreatment and perhaps annihilation of everyone else, according to the doctrine of utilitarianism.
According to the philosopher Robert Nozick:
"Utilitarian theory is embarrassed by the possibility of utility monsters who get enormously greater sums of utility from any sacrifice of others than these others lose . . . the theory seems to require that we all be sacrificed in the monster’s maw, in order to increase total utility."[1] This thought experiment attempts to show that utilitarianism is not actually egalitarian, even though it appears to be at first glance.
It is the opposite of the mere addition paradox, which argues that utilitarianism may lead to a very heavily populated dystopic world.

scusami se sono assilante jonhn, ma non ho la minima idea di cosa sia scritto qui....

[Winnie]

Qualcuno mi spiega il senso di questo settarismo?
Siamo alle liste di proscrizione stilate sulla base di un articolo di Wikipedia?
John è diventato il Sant'Uffizio del liberalismo?

[-Duca-]

Qualcuno mi spiega il senso di questo settarismo?
Siamo alle liste di proscrizione stilate sulla base di un articolo di Wikipedia?
John è diventato il Sant'Uffizio del liberalismo?

quoto