Good Thoughts

Share this post

Utilitarianism.net (version 2.0)

rychappell.substack.com

Discover more from Good Thoughts

Consequentialist moral philosophy and analysis
Over 3,000 subscribers
Continue reading
Sign in

Utilitarianism.net (version 2.0)

Now maximally good! Or pretty close, at any rate...

Richard Y Chappell
Feb 13, 2023
8
Share this post

Utilitarianism.net (version 2.0)

rychappell.substack.com
6
Share

Utilitarianism.net (previously introduced here) has undergone a major tech upgrade, thanks to our brilliant volunteer webmaster, Boris Yakubchik. Features include:

  • New textbook overview page

  • PDF download button for each article

  • Faster loading, with much improved mobile version

  • More consistent and user-friendly design style across website (including, e.g., between the guest essays and thinkers pages, and between the textbook overview and objections overview)

  • Lots of under-the-hood changes that will make it easier for us to update with new content in future

Newly published content includes four fantastic guest contributions:

  • John Broome discusses Climate Change, and utilitarianism’s implications for how both individuals and governments ought to respond.

  • Krister Bykvist discusses Moral Uncertainty, and how it might temper utilitarian verdicts.

  • Nir Eyal reconceptualizes the relationship between Utilitarianism and Research Ethics (see excerpt below).

  • James Goodrich introduces a neglected early utilitarian (and socialist) thinker: William Thompson.

To help whet your appetite, here’s an excerpt from Eyal’s guest essay:

Following public outrage at multiple research ethics abuses exposed in the 1960s and 1970s, some ethicists condemned these and earlier abuses as “unashamedly utilitarian” for their alleged “obnoxious politics” of prioritizing collective well-being over individual participants’ health.

This picture remains common in research ethics teaching. Canonical introductions to research ethics regularly present elements of research ethics as contrasting with imagined utilitarian recommendations.

This article questions this common picture of research ethics’ philosophical foundations. It argues that:

(I) utilitarianism can account for many core research ethics norms,
(II) Kantian ethics may conflict with many core research ethics norms, and
(III) a more utilitarian outlook would improve contemporary research ethics in concrete ways.

Highly recommended! (I hope it ends up widely assigned in bioethics and research ethics classes, as it does a great job of clearing up common misconceptions.)

Finally, for anyone who prefers video, I just shot a rough 5-minute video introduction to the website, and some of the things I most like about it:

More new content coming soon!

8
Share this post

Utilitarianism.net (version 2.0)

rychappell.substack.com
6
Share
6 Comments
Share this discussion

Utilitarianism.net (version 2.0)

rychappell.substack.com
Yury
Feb 15Liked by Richard Y Chappell

Great website, but I've a couple of questions. Are there any plans to publish an ebook? How can I report typos and dead links? And are there any plans for articles about forgotten utilitarian thinkers like Spencer and Godwin?

Expand full comment
Reply
Share
1 reply by Richard Y Chappell
nonalt
Feb 13·edited Feb 13Liked by Richard Y Chappell

IMO the "resources-and-further-reading" and further reading section could benefit from more resources on the formal side. In addition to Broome's Weighing Goods, which is very long, still quite hard for a non-technical reader to understand, and not rigorous, I would suggest including the state of the art papers on his topic:

- Mongin and Pivato 2015 "Ranking multidimensional alternatives and uncertain prospects" JET

- Fleurbaey and Mongin 2016, "Utilitarian Relevance of the Aggregation Theorem" AEJ Micro

- McCarthy, Mikkola, Thomas 2020, "Utilitarianism with and without expected utility" J Math Econ

I believe these papers give the state of the art understanding of Harsanyi's two classic theorems on utilitarianism from the 1950s. I believe the first two papers above primarily concern the 1955 theorem, while McCarthy et al relates more to the 1953 though probably relates to both.

Other topics papers to consider referencing include

Campbell Brown's "Consequentialize This", Fleurbey's "Assessing Risky Social Situations", and possibly recent papers from infinite ethics.

Expand full comment
Reply
Share
1 reply by Richard Y Chappell
4 more comments...
Top
New
Community

No posts

Ready for more?

© 2023 Richard Y Chappell
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start WritingGet the app
Substack is the home for great writing