Utilitarianism before Bentham

Heydt, Colin

doi:10.1017/cco9781139096737.002

Cited by 27 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 244 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Like Mozi, they reasoned that God has an interest in impartially maximizing the good. They combined this idea with a theory of the good that was much closer to Bentham's, namely, the good consists in maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain in rational beings (Heydt 2014).…”

Section: A Religious Route To Impartial Moralitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although one could make a case for substituting ‘the universe’ for ‘God’ in premise (c), there's no indication that the Anglican utilitarians would have accepted that, and, without (a) and (b), the argument falls apart anyway. The Anglicans were clear about their view that “moral obligation requires God and God's sanctions” (Heydt 2014: 26). As noted, Gay (1731/1781: xxxiii) ridiculed those who believed otherwise.…”

Section: A Religious Route To Impartial Moralitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Golden Rule: A Naturalistic Perspective

Cofnas¹

2022

Utilitas

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of philosophers from Hobbes to Mill to Parfit have held some combination of the following views about the Golden Rule: (a) It is the cornerstone of morality across many if not all cultures. (b) It affirms the value of moral impartiality, and potentially the core idea of utilitarianism. (c) It is immune from evolutionary debunking, that is, there is no good naturalistic explanation for widespread acceptance of the Golden Rule, ergo the best explanation for its appearance in different traditions is that people have perceived the same non-natural moral truth. De Lazari-Radek and Singer employ all three of these claims in an argument meant to vindicate Sidgwick's ‘principle of universal benevolence’. I argue that the Golden Rule is the cornerstone of morality only in Christianity, it does not advocate moral impartiality, and there is a naturalistic explanation for why versions of the Golden Rule appear in different traditions.

show abstract

Section: A Religious Route To Impartial Moralitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Religious Route To Impartial Moralitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Golden Rule: A Naturalistic Perspective

Cofnas¹

2022

Utilitas

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While Cockburn holds a teleological conception of pleasure, she does not equate happiness with pleasure; when she argues that the standard of virtue requires us to promote happiness, she is not 4 For more on Gay, see Heydt (2014) and Lustila (2018). 5 For more on this aspect of her view, see Bolton (1993), Broad (2002, 148-50), and Sheridan (2007).…”

Section: Getting Right With Human Naturementioning

confidence: 99%

Catharine Trotter Cockburn’s Democratization of Moral Virtue

Lustila

2019

Can. J. of Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines Catharine Trotter Cockburn’s moral philosophy, focusing on her accounts of virtuous conduct, conscience, obligation, and moral character. I argue that Cockburn’s account of virtue has two interlocking parts: a view of what virtue requires of us, and a view of how we come to see this requirement as authoritative. I then argue that while the two parts are ultimately in tension with one another, the tension is instructive. I use Cockburn’s encounter with Shaftesbury’s writings to help bring out this tension in her thought. I conclude that Cockburn’s work marks a bridge in modern moral philosophy from seventeenth-century natural law theory to the naturalism of the eighteenth century— that of Gay, Hume, and Bentham.

show abstract

Self-Interest and the Common Good in Early Modern Philosophy

Heydt

2024

The New Synthese Historical Library

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this chapter, I taxonomize early modern modes of relating self-interest and the common good. I discuss Protestant natural law theory, republicanism, utilitarianism, and—my main focus—Scottish social thought from Adam Smith and others. My aim is twofold. First, historically, I lay out the conceptual field for the early modern relation of self-interest and the common good while giving special attention to Scottish innovations. Second, from a philosophical point of view, I argue that the Scottish theory of the common good offers some of the best conceptual resources for considering the relation of individual and community in present-day large, industrial nation-states and empires. More specifically, I claim that the Scots develop a concept of the common good that is (1) more social and economic than its alternatives, (2) more systemic and less dependent on the psychology and intentions of individuals, and (3) less tied to thick notions of community (including the state) and more amenable to empire. I conclude by bringing out the significance of these claims for our thinking about self-interest, the common good, and community.

show abstract

Utilitarianism before Bentham

Cited by 27 publications

References 244 publications

The Golden Rule: A Naturalistic Perspective

The Golden Rule: A Naturalistic Perspective

Catharine Trotter Cockburn’s Democratization of Moral Virtue

Self-Interest and the Common Good in Early Modern Philosophy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About