Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Reasons and Persons.Derek Parfit - 1984 - Oxford University Press.
    Challenging, with several powerful arguments, some of our deepest beliefs about rationality, morality, and personal identity, Parfit claims that we have a false view about our own nature. It is often rational to act against our own best interersts, he argues, and most of us have moral views that are self-defeating. We often act wrongly, although we know there will be no one with serious grounds for complaint, and when we consider future generations it is very hard to avoid conclusions (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1788 citations  
  • Reasons and Persons.Joseph Margolis - 1986 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 47 (2):311-327.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1630 citations  
  • Anarchy, State and Utopia.Robert Nozick - 1974 - Basic Books.
    Winner of the 1975 National Book Award, this brilliant and widely acclaimed book is a powerful philosophical challenge to the most widely held political and social positions of our age--liberal, socialist, and conservative.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1197 citations  
  • The Possibility of Altruism.Bernard Gert - 1972 - Journal of Philosophy 69 (12):340-344.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   83 citations  
  • Weighing Goods: Equality, Uncertainty and Time.John Broome - 1991 - Wiley-Blackwell.
    This study uses techniques from economics to illuminate fundamental questions in ethics, particularly in the foundations of utilitarianism. Topics considered include the nature of teleological ethics, the foundations of decision theory, the value of equality and the moral significance of a person's continuing identity through time.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   291 citations  
  • The Possibility of Altruism.John Benson - 1972 - Philosophical Quarterly 22 (86):82-83.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   282 citations  
  • Equality of Opportunity for Welfare Defended and Recanted.R. J. Arneson - 1999 - Journal of Political Philosophy 7 (4):488–497.
    Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen’s interesting criticisms of the ideal of equality of opportunity for welfare provide a welcome occasion for rethinking the requirements of egalitarian distributive justice.1 In the essay he criticizes I had proposed that insofar as we think distributive justice requires equality of any sort, we should conceive of distributive equality as equal opportunity provision. Roughly put, my suggestion was that equality of opportunity for welfare obtains among a group of people when all would have the same expected welfare over (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   33 citations  
  • Prioritarianism for Prospects.Wlodek Rabinowicz - 2002 - Utilitas 14 (1):2-21.
    The Interpersonal Addition Theorem, due to John Broome, states that, given certain seemingly innocuous assumptions, the overall utility of an uncertain prospect can be represented as the sum of its individual utilities. Given ‘Bernoulli's hypothesis’ according to which individual utility coincides with individual welfare, this result appears to be incompatible with the Priority View. On that view, due to Derek Parfit, the benefits to the worse off should count for more, in the overall evaluation, than the comparable benefits to the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   27 citations  
  • On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice.G. A. Cohen - 1989 - Ethics 99 (4):906-944.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   457 citations  
  • Let Them Eat Chances: Probability and Distributive Justice: David Wasserman.David Wasserman - 1996 - Economics and Philosophy 12 (1):29-49.
    Jon Elster reports that in 1940, and again in 1970, the U.S. draft lottery was challenged for falling short of the legally mandated ‘random selection’. On both occasions, the physical mixing of the lots appeared to be incomplete, since the birth dates were clustered in a way that would have been extremely unlikely if the lots were fully mixed. There appears to have been no suspicion on either occasion that the deficiency in the mixing was intended, known, or believed to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • Equality and Equal Opportunity for Welfare.Richard Arneson - 1997 - In Louis P. Pojman & Robert Westmoreland (eds.), Equality: Selected Readings. Oup Usa.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   84 citations  
  • Reply to Crisp.Michael Otsuka & Alex Voorhoeve - 2011 - Utilitas 23 (1):109-114.
    In 'Why It Matters that Some Are Worse off than Others,' we offer a new critique of the Priority View. In a recent article, Roger Crisp has argued that our critique is flawed. In this reply, we show that Crisp fails to grapple with, much less defeat, the central claim of our critique. We also show that an example that Crisp offers in support of the Priority View in fact lends support to our critique of that view.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • What Makes a Lottery Fair?George Sher - 1980 - Noûs 14 (2):203-216.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • Inequality: A Complex, Individualistic, and Comparative Notion.Larry S. Temkin - 2001 - Philosophical Issues 11 (1):327-353.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • V—Fairness.John Broome - 1991 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 91 (1):87-102.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   40 citations  
  • Why It Matters That Some Are Worse Off Than Others: An Argument Against the Priority View.Michael Otsuka & Alex Voorhoeve - 2009 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 37 (2):171-199.
    We argue that there is a marked shift in the moral weight of an increment in a person's well-being when one moves from a case involving only intra-personal trade-offs to a case involving only inter-personal trads-offs. This shift, we propose, is required by the separateness of persons. We also argue that the Priority View put forward by Parfit cannot account for such a shift. We also outline two alternative views, an egalitarian view and a claims-based view, that can account for (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   37 citations  
  • Fairness.John Broome - 1990 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 91:87 - 101.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   57 citations  
  • Practical Reasoning.David P. Gauthier - 1963 - Oxford, Clarendon Press.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • Egalitarianism and the Difference Between Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Judgments.Dennis McKerlie - 2006 - In Nils Holtug & Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen (eds.), Egalitarianism: New Essays on the Nature and Value of Equality. Clarendon Press.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations