Scholarlink

<p>Peterson presents a new hybrid ethical theory in his paper&#xa0;“Dutilitarianism.” As the name suggests, the theory is a mixture of Utilitarianism and Duty ethics. Its main motivation is that it will improve on both. In my commentary, I raise some doubts about this idea. One problem is that Dutilitarianism will not have morally acceptable implications: it will classify some wrong acts as right. Another problem is that it cannot provide any plausible explanation for its verdicts: a believable combination of utilitarian and Kantian explanations for why right acts are right does not seem to fit dutilitarian verdicts. A third problem is that the formula that Peterson suggests for calculating dutilitarian degrees of rightness is unhelpful: it cannot be used to compare acts that are partly right in different ways. A fourth problem is that Dutilitarianism is needlessly complex: it uses degrees of rightness, rather than the standard binary rightness, but this invention neither reflects the potential complexities of rightness grounds nor helps us decide what to do.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Doubts about Dutilitarianism

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年5月29日

查看全文
  • Karin Enflo

摘要

Peterson presents a new hybrid ethical theory in his paper “Dutilitarianism.” As the name suggests, the theory is a mixture of Utilitarianism and Duty ethics. Its main motivation is that it will improve on both. In my commentary, I raise some doubts about this idea. One problem is that Dutilitarianism will not have morally acceptable implications: it will classify some wrong acts as right. Another problem is that it cannot provide any plausible explanation for its verdicts: a believable combination of utilitarian and Kantian explanations for why right acts are right does not seem to fit dutilitarian verdicts. A third problem is that the formula that Peterson suggests for calculating dutilitarian degrees of rightness is unhelpful: it cannot be used to compare acts that are partly right in different ways. A fourth problem is that Dutilitarianism is needlessly complex: it uses degrees of rightness, rather than the standard binary rightness, but this invention neither reflects the potential complexities of rightness grounds nor helps us decide what to do.