Matches in DBpedia 2016-04 for { ?s ?p "Negative Utilitarianism is a version of the ethical theory utilitarianism. Like other versions of utilitarianism, negative utilitarianism holds that moral right and wrong depend only on consequences for well-being. 'Well-being' here roughly refers to what is good and bad for individuals. Negative utilitarianism differs from non-negative versions of utilitarianism by focusing more on reducing and avoiding negative well-being (also called 'disutility' or 'illbeing'), for example unpleasant experiences. The term 'negative utilitarianism' is used differently by different authors. Some use it to denote the theory that reducing negative well-being is the only thing that ultimately matters morally. Others distinguish between 'strong' and 'weak' versions of negative utilitarianism, where strong versions are only concerned with reducing negative well-being, and weak versions say that both positive and negative well-being matter but that negative well-being matters more.There are many kinds of negative utilitarianism. Besides that negative utilitarianisms can differ by how much weight they give to negative well-being (disutility) compared to positive well-being (positive utility), negative utilitarianisms can also (like other kinds of utilitarianisms) have different conceptions of what well-being (utility) is. For example, negative preference utilitarianism says that the well-being in an outcome depends on frustrated and satisfied preferences. Negative hedonistic utilitarianism thinks of well-being in terms of pleasant and unpleasant experiences. There are many other variations on how negative utilitarianism can be specified.The term ‘negative utilitarianism’ was introduced by R. Ninian Smart in 1958 in his reply to Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies. Smart also presented the most famous argument against negative utilitarianism: that negative utilitarianism would entail that a ruler who is able to instantly and painlessly destroy the human race would have a duty to do so. Many authors have endorsed versions of this argument, and some have presented counterarguments against it."@en }
Showing triples 1 to 2 of
2
with 100 triples per page.
- Negative_Utilitarianism abstract "Negative Utilitarianism is a version of the ethical theory utilitarianism. Like other versions of utilitarianism, negative utilitarianism holds that moral right and wrong depend only on consequences for well-being. 'Well-being' here roughly refers to what is good and bad for individuals. Negative utilitarianism differs from non-negative versions of utilitarianism by focusing more on reducing and avoiding negative well-being (also called 'disutility' or 'illbeing'), for example unpleasant experiences. The term 'negative utilitarianism' is used differently by different authors. Some use it to denote the theory that reducing negative well-being is the only thing that ultimately matters morally. Others distinguish between 'strong' and 'weak' versions of negative utilitarianism, where strong versions are only concerned with reducing negative well-being, and weak versions say that both positive and negative well-being matter but that negative well-being matters more.There are many kinds of negative utilitarianism. Besides that negative utilitarianisms can differ by how much weight they give to negative well-being (disutility) compared to positive well-being (positive utility), negative utilitarianisms can also (like other kinds of utilitarianisms) have different conceptions of what well-being (utility) is. For example, negative preference utilitarianism says that the well-being in an outcome depends on frustrated and satisfied preferences. Negative hedonistic utilitarianism thinks of well-being in terms of pleasant and unpleasant experiences. There are many other variations on how negative utilitarianism can be specified.The term ‘negative utilitarianism’ was introduced by R. Ninian Smart in 1958 in his reply to Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies. Smart also presented the most famous argument against negative utilitarianism: that negative utilitarianism would entail that a ruler who is able to instantly and painlessly destroy the human race would have a duty to do so. Many authors have endorsed versions of this argument, and some have presented counterarguments against it.".
- Q22905867 abstract "Negative Utilitarianism is a version of the ethical theory utilitarianism. Like other versions of utilitarianism, negative utilitarianism holds that moral right and wrong depend only on consequences for well-being. 'Well-being' here roughly refers to what is good and bad for individuals. Negative utilitarianism differs from non-negative versions of utilitarianism by focusing more on reducing and avoiding negative well-being (also called 'disutility' or 'illbeing'), for example unpleasant experiences. The term 'negative utilitarianism' is used differently by different authors. Some use it to denote the theory that reducing negative well-being is the only thing that ultimately matters morally. Others distinguish between 'strong' and 'weak' versions of negative utilitarianism, where strong versions are only concerned with reducing negative well-being, and weak versions say that both positive and negative well-being matter but that negative well-being matters more.There are many kinds of negative utilitarianism. Besides that negative utilitarianisms can differ by how much weight they give to negative well-being (disutility) compared to positive well-being (positive utility), negative utilitarianisms can also (like other kinds of utilitarianisms) have different conceptions of what well-being (utility) is. For example, negative preference utilitarianism says that the well-being in an outcome depends on frustrated and satisfied preferences. Negative hedonistic utilitarianism thinks of well-being in terms of pleasant and unpleasant experiences. There are many other variations on how negative utilitarianism can be specified.The term ‘negative utilitarianism’ was introduced by R. Ninian Smart in 1958 in his reply to Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies. Smart also presented the most famous argument against negative utilitarianism: that negative utilitarianism would entail that a ruler who is able to instantly and painlessly destroy the human race would have a duty to do so. Many authors have endorsed versions of this argument, and some have presented counterarguments against it.".