Advanced

Preference Utilitarianism by Way of Preference Change?

Rabinowicz, Wlodek LU (2009) In Preference Change: Approaches from Philosophy, Economics and Psychology p.185-206
Abstract
This paper revisits Richard Hare's classical and much discussed argument for preference utilitarianism (Moral Thinking, 1981), which relies on the conception of moral deliberation as a process of thought experimentation, with concomitant preference change. The paper focuses on an apparent gap in Hare's reasoning, the so-called No-Conflict Problem. A solution to this difficulty which was proposed in (Rabinowicz and Strömberg 1996) is re-examined and shown to lead to a number of difficulties. The paper therefore also considers an alternative idea, due to Daniel Elstein. This new proposal may well turn out to be the best way of filling the gap in Hare's argument.

The paper also examines whether the gap is there to begin with: The... (More)
This paper revisits Richard Hare's classical and much discussed argument for preference utilitarianism (Moral Thinking, 1981), which relies on the conception of moral deliberation as a process of thought experimentation, with concomitant preference change. The paper focuses on an apparent gap in Hare's reasoning, the so-called No-Conflict Problem. A solution to this difficulty which was proposed in (Rabinowicz and Strömberg 1996) is re-examined and shown to lead to a number of difficulties. The paper therefore also considers an alternative idea, due to Daniel Elstein. This new proposal may well turn out to be the best way of filling the gap in Hare's argument.

The paper also examines whether the gap is there to begin with: The problem should perhaps be dissolved rather than solved. This suggestion goes back to an idea of Zeno Vendler (1988). Unfortunately, it turns out that Vendler's move does not save Hare from criticism: It does dissolve the No-Conflict Problem, but at the same time it gives rise to another, potentially more serious difficulty. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding
publication status
published
subject
in
Preference Change: Approaches from Philosophy, Economics and Psychology
editor
Grune-Yanoff, Till
pages
185 - 206
publisher
Springer
ISBN
9048125928
9789048125920
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
2d32b657-7102-418a-aa69-9fba86447717 (old id 1458738)
date added to LUP
2009-08-19 16:06:52
date last changed
2016-04-16 08:15:21
@inbook{2d32b657-7102-418a-aa69-9fba86447717,
  abstract     = {This paper revisits Richard Hare's classical and much discussed argument for preference utilitarianism (Moral Thinking, 1981), which relies on the conception of moral deliberation as a process of thought experimentation, with concomitant preference change. The paper focuses on an apparent gap in Hare's reasoning, the so-called No-Conflict Problem. A solution to this difficulty which was proposed in (Rabinowicz and Strömberg 1996) is re-examined and shown to lead to a number of difficulties. The paper therefore also considers an alternative idea, due to Daniel Elstein. This new proposal may well turn out to be the best way of filling the gap in Hare's argument. <br/><br>
The paper also examines whether the gap is there to begin with: The problem should perhaps be dissolved rather than solved. This suggestion goes back to an idea of Zeno Vendler (1988). Unfortunately, it turns out that Vendler's move does not save Hare from criticism: It does dissolve the No-Conflict Problem, but at the same time it gives rise to another, potentially more serious difficulty.},
  author       = {Rabinowicz, Wlodek},
  editor       = {Grune-Yanoff, Till},
  isbn         = {9048125928},
  language     = {eng},
  pages        = {185--206},
  publisher    = {Springer},
  series       = {Preference Change: Approaches from Philosophy, Economics and Psychology},
  title        = {Preference Utilitarianism by Way of Preference Change?},
  year         = {2009},
}