Cover of book: Konsequentialismus
Buy in shop
, to see if you have full access to this publication.
Monograph No access

Konsequentialismus

Einführung
Authors:
Series:
intro: Philosophie, Volume 1
Publisher:
 2022

Keywords

Bibliographic data

Copyright Year
2022
ISBN-Print
978-3-495-48525-5
ISBN-Online
978-3-495-99967-7
Publisher
Karl Alber, Baden-Baden
Series
intro: Philosophie
Volume
1
Language
German
Pages
178
Product Type
Monograph

Table of contents

ChapterPages
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis No access 1 - 10
    1. Gründe für die Beschäftigung mit dem Konsequentialismus No access
    2. Elemente der Moral No access
    3. Charakteristische Eigenschaften der Moral No access
    4. Empirische Beschäftigung mit der Moral No access
    5. Philosophische Beschäftigung mit der Moral: Ethik No access
    6. Kriterien zum Vergleich und zur Bewertung ethischer Theorien No access
    7. Richtigkeitskriterium und deontischer Status von Handlungen No access
    8. Moralisch richtige und falsche Handlungen vs. moralisch gute und schlechte Handlungen No access
  3. Konsequenzendeterminiertheit No access 29 - 38
  4. Von der Konsequenzendeterminiertheit zur Maximierungserlaubnis No access 39 - 42
    1. Von der Maximierungserlaubnis zum Maximierungsgebot No access
    2. Direkter Handlungskonsequentialismus No access
  6. Handlungen und Konsequenzen No access 51 - 60
    1. Das außermoralisch Gute und das moralisch Gute No access
    2. Die Bestimmung des Guten unabhängig und nicht unabhängig vom Rechten No access
    3. Gut-basierte Theorien und die Ableitung des Rechten aus dem Guten No access
    4. Hat im Konsequentialismus das Rechte nur instrumentellen Wert als Mittel zur Maximierung des Guten? No access
    5. Der Vorrang des Guten vor dem Rechten No access
    1. Theorien des Guten und der beste Zustand vom (nicht-moralischen) persönlichen Standpunkt No access
    2. Ethischer Egoismus No access
    3. Vom nicht-moralisch besten Zustand für einen Menschen zum nicht-moralisch besten Zustand für mehrere Menschen No access
    4. Utilitarismus No access
    5. Von der nicht-moralischen Bewertung von Zuständen zur moralischen Bewertung von Zuständen No access
    1. Das Richtigkeitskriterium ist nicht anwendbar: Wir können nie wissen, welche Handlung richtig ist No access
    2. Das Richtigkeitskriterium erlaubt zu viel No access
      1. Kosten für die handelnde Person No access
  10. Satisfizierender Konsequentialismus No access 111 - 116
  11. Zumutbarer Konsequentialismus No access 117 - 122
  12. Indirekter Handlungskonsequentialismus No access 123 - 132
  13. Regelkonsequentialismus No access 133 - 138
  14. Konsequentialisierung No access 139 - 146
    1. Maximierungsgebot No access
    2. Konsequenzendeterminiertheit No access
    3. Maximierungserlaubnis No access
    4. Die Welt zu einem besseren bzw. zum bestmöglichen Ort machen No access
      1. Nachschlagewerk No access
      2. Einführende Aufsätze und Buchkapitel No access
      3. Einführende Monographien No access
      4. Anthologien No access
      5. Monographien und Textsammlungen einzelner Autoren No access
    2. Argumente für den Konsequentialismus und Utilitarismus No access
    3. Globaler Konsequentialismus No access
    4. Konsequentialisierung No access
    5. Konsequentialismus und der Vorrang des Guten No access
    6. Konsequentialismus und die Nichtberücksichtigung der Verschiedenheit der Personen No access
    7. Konsequentialismus und die Unvorhersehbarkeit zukünftiger Konsequenzen No access
    8. Konsequentialismus und Freundschaft, Parteilichkeit sowie persönliche Beziehungen No access
    9. Konsequentialismus und Integrität der Person No access
    10. Konsequentialismus und Kant No access
    11. Konsequentialismus und Rechte No access
    12. Konsequentialismus und Überforderung No access
    13. Objektiver, subjektiver und prospektiver Konsequentialismus (tatsächliche vs. zu erwartende Konsequenzen) No access
    14. Öffentlichkeitsbedingung und Konsequentialismus als geheime (esoterische) Moral No access
    15. Regelkonsequentialismus No access
    16. Richtigkeitskriterium vs. Entscheidungskriterium No access
    17. Satisfizierender Konsequentialismus No access
    18. Skalarer Konsequentialismus No access
      1. Welfarismus No access
      2. Wohlbefinden (Well-Being) No access
    20. Werte fördern (promoting values) vs. Werte achten (Honouring values) No access

Bibliography (380)

  1. Allgemeine Literaturhinweise zum Konsequentialismus und Utilitarismus Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  2. Da die bedeutendste konsequentialistische Theorie der Utilitarismus ist und viele konsequentialistische Themen im Rahmen des Utilitarismus diskutiert werden, kann man nicht sinnvoll zwischen Literatur zum Konsequentialismus und Literatur zum Utilitarismus trennen. Die folgenden Literaturhinweise enthalten deshalb auch Titel zum Utilitarismus. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  3. Nachschlagewerk Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  4. Crimmins, James E. (Hrsg.) (2013): The Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Utilitarianism, New York. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  5. Einführende Aufsätze und Buchkapitel Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  6. In nahezu jeder Einführung in die Ethik findet sich ein Kapitel zum Utilitarismus oder Konsequentialismus. Einige davon sowie einige Überblicksartikel seien hier genannt: Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  7. Shafer-Landau, Russ (2021): The Fundamentals of Ethics, 5. Auflage, Oxford, 124–42 (»Consequentialism: Its Nature and Attractions«), 143–66 (»Consequentialism: Its Difficulties«). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  8. Shafer-Landau, Russ (2021): The Fundamentals of Ethics, 5. Auflage, Oxford, 124––42 (»“Consequentialism: Its Nature and Attractions«”), 143––66 (»“Consequentialism: Its Difficulties«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  9. Henning, Tim (2019): Allgemeine Ethik, Paderborn, 45––76 (»„Konsequentialistische Ethik«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  10. Horn, Christoph (2018): Einführung in die Moralphilosophie, Freiburg/München, 113––36 (»„Utilitarismus«“). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  11. Birnbacher, Dieter (2016): Konsequenzialismus, in Ethik in den Gesundheitswissenschaften. Eine Einführung, hrsg. von Peter Schröder-Bäck und Joseph Kuhn, Weinheim und Basel, 62––71. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  12. Hübner, Dietmar (20218): Einführung in die philosophische Ethik, 23., erneut durchgesehene und korrigierte Auflage, Göttingen, 211––73 (»„Teleologie – die erstrebenswerte Welt«“). (Erstau⁠f¬lage: Göttingen 2014) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  13. Timmons, Mark (2013): Moral Theory: An Introduction, 2. Auflage, Lanham, 111––75 (»“Consequentialism 1: Classical Utilitarianism«”, »“Consequentialism 2: Contemporary Devolpments«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  14. Ricken, Friedo (2012): Allgemeine Ethik, 5., überarbeitete und ergänzte Auflage, Stuttgart, 286––315 (»„Konsequentialismus«“). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  15. Birnbacher, Dieter (2011): Utilitarismus, in Handbuch Ethik, hrsg. von Marcus Düwell, Christoph Hübenthal und Micha H. Werner, 3., aktualisierte Auflage, Stuttgart, 95––107. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  16. Portmore, Douglas (2011): Consequentialism, in The Continuum Companion to Ethics, hrsg. von Christian Miller, London, 143––67. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  17. Hooker, Brad (2010): Consequentialism, in The Routledge Companion to Ethics, hrsg. von John Skorupski, Milton Park, Abingdon, 444––55. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  18. Pauer-Studer, Herlinde (2010): Einführung in die Ethik, 2., aktualisierte und erweiterte Auflage, Wien, 59––81 (»„Utilitarismus«“). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  19. Chappell, Timothy (2009): Ethics and Experience. Life Beyond Moral Theory, Montreal, 125––52 (»“Utilitarianism«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  20. Driver, Julia (2009): The History of Utilitarianism, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, hrsg. von Edward N. Zalta, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-historyhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  21. Birnbacher, Dieter (2008): Heiligen die Zwecke die Mittel? – Einführung in die Konsequentialistische Ethik, in Grundkurs Ethik 1: Grundlagen, hrsg. von Johannes S. Ach, Kurt Bayertz und Ludwig Siep, Paderborn, 91––106. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  22. Gesang, Bernward (2008): Nützlichkeit und Glück, in Kolleg Praktische Philosophie Band 2: Grundpositionen und Anwendungsprobleme der Ethik, hrsg. von Volker Steenblock, Stuttgart, 83––110. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  23. Brink, David O. (2006): Some Forms and Limits of Consequentialism, in The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory, hrsg. von David Copp, Oxford, 380––423. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  24. Shaw, William (2006): Contemporary Criticisms of Utilitarianism: a Response, in The Blackwell Guide to Mill’s Utilitarianism, hrsg. von Henry R. West, Oxford, 201––16. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  25. Shaw, William (2006): The Consequentialist Perspective, in Contemporary Debates in Moral Theory, hrsg. von James Dreier, Oxford, 5––20. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  26. Birnbacher, Dieter (2003): Analytische Einführung in die Ethik, Berlin (2. Auflage: 2007), 173––240 (»„Konsequentialistische Ethik«“). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  27. Kymlicka, Will (2002): Contemporary Political Philosophy. An Introduction, 2. Auflage, Oxford, 10––52 (»“Utilitarianism«”). – Politische Philosophie heute: eine Einführung, Frankfurt a. M.a. M./New York 1996 (Übersetzung der 1. Auflage), 17––53 (»„Der Utilitarismus«“). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  28. Knowles, Dudley (2001): Political Philosophy, London, 23––67 (»“Utilitarianism«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  29. Pettit, Philip (1997): The Consequentialist Perspective, in: Marcia W. Baron, Philip Pettit und Michael Slote, Three Methods of Ethics, Oxford, 92––174. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  30. Scarre, Geoffrey (1996): Utilitarianism, London, 1––26 (»“Introduction: The Character of the Theory«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  31. Brülisauer, Bruno (1988): Moral und Konvention. Darstellung und Kritik ethischer Theorien, Frankfurt am Main, 120––88 (»„Der Utilitarismus«“). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  32. Griffin, James (1982): Modern Utilitarianism, Revue Internationale de Philosophie 36, 331––75. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  33. Brock, Dan (1973): Recent Work in Utilitarianism, American Philosophical Quarterly 10, 241––76. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  34. Einführende Monographien Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  35. Forcehimes, Andrew T./Semrau, Luke (2019): Thinking Through Utilitarianism. A Guide to Contemporary Arguments, Indianapolis. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  36. de Lazari-Radek, Katarzyna/Singer, Peter (2017): Utilitarianism. A Very Short Introduction, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  37. Driver, Julia (2012): Consequentialism, London. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  38. Bykvist, Krister (2010): Utilitarianism. A Guide for the Perplexed, London. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  39. Mulgan, Tim (2007): Understanding Utilitarianism, Stocksfield. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  40. Odell, S. Jack (2004): On Consequentialist Ethics, Toronto. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  41. Shaw, William H. (1999): Contemporary Ethics. Taking Account of Utilitarianism, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  42. Scarre, Geoffrey (1996): Utilitarianism, London. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  43. Quinton, Anthony (1989): Utilitarian Ethics, London, 2. Aufl. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  44. Anthologien Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  45. McMahan, Jeff/Campbell, Tim/Goodrich, James/Ramakrishnan, Ketan (Hrsg.) (2021): Principles and Persons: The Legacy of Derek Parfit, Oxford (besonders die Aufsätze in Teil II). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  46. Portmore, Douglas (Hrsg.) (2020): The Oxford Handbook of Consequentialism, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  47. Narens, Louis/Skyrms, Brian (2020): The Pursuit of Happiness: Philosophical and Psychological Foundations of Utility, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  48. Seidel, Christian (Hrsg.) (2019): Consequentialism. New Directions, New Problems, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  49. Schroth, Jörg (Hrsg.) (2016): Texte zum Utilitarismus, Stuttgart. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  50. Hiller, Avram/Ilea, Ramona/Kahn, Leonard (Hrsg.) (2014): Consequentialism and Environmental Ethics, New York/London. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  51. Eggleston, Ben/Miller, Dale (Hrsg.) (2014): Cambridge Companion to Utilitarianism, Cambridge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  52. Höffe, Otfried (Hrsg.) (2013): Einführung in die utilitaristische Ethik, 5., überarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage, Tübingen. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  53. Darwall, Stephen (Hrsg.) (2003): Consequentialism, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  54. Hooker, Brad/Mason, Elinor/Miller, Dale E. (Hrsg.) (2000): Morality, Rules, and Consequences. A Critical Reader, Edinburgh. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  55. Gesang, Bernward (Hrsg.) (1998): Gerechtigkeitsutilitarismus, Paderborn. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  56. Oderberg, David S. (Hrsg.) (1997): Human Lives: Critical Essays on Consequentialist Bioethics, New York. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  57. Pettit, Philip (Hrsg.) (1993): Consequentialism, Aldershot. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  58. Gähde, Ulrich/Schrader, Wolfgang H. (Hrsg.) (1992): Der klassische Utilitarismus. Einflüsse – Entwicklungen – Folgen, Berlin. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  59. Allison, Lincoln (Hrsg.) (1990): The Utilitarian Response, London. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  60. Glover, Jonathan (Hrsg.) (1990): Utilitarianism and Its Critics, New York. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  61. Scheffler, Samuel (Hrsg.) (1988): Consequentialism and Its Critics, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  62. Frey, R. G.R. G. (Hrsg.) (1985): Utility and Rights, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  63. Miller, Harlan B./Williams H. (Hrsg.) (1982): The Limits of Utilitarianism, Minneapolis. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  64. Sen, Amartya/Williams, Bernard (Hrsg.) (1982): Utilitarianism and beyond, Cambridge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  65. Bayles, Michael (Hrsg.) (1968): Contemporary Utilitarianism, Garden City, NY. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  66. Monographien und Textsammlungen einzelner Autoren Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  67. Andrić, Vuko (2021): From Value to Rightness. Consequentialism, Action-Guidance, and the Perspective-Dependence of Moral Duties, New York und Abingdon. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  68. Tuckness, Alex (2021): Morality as Legislation. Rules and Consequences, Cambridge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  69. Mulgan, Tim (2020): Utilitarianism, Cambridge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  70. Norcross, Alastair (2020): Morality by Degrees. Reasons without Demands, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  71. Portmore, Douglas W. (2019): Opting for the Best: Oughts and Options, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  72. Warmt, Marcel (2019): Konsequentialismus und besondere Pflichten, Freiburg, München. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  73. Woodard, Christopher (2019): Taking Utilitarianism Seriously, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  74. Schultz, Bart (2017): The Happiness Philosophers. The Lives and Works of the Great Utilitarians, Princeton, NJ. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  75. Mukerji, Nikil (2016): The Case Against Consequentialism Reconsidered, Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 (ohne Ortsangabe). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  76. Shaw, William H. (2016): Utilitarianism and the Ethics of War, Milton Park, Abingdon. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  77. de Lazari-Radek, Katarzyna/Singer, Peter (2014): The Point of View of the Universe. Sidgwick and Contemporary Ethics, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  78. Peterson, Martin (2013): The Dimensions of Consequentialism. Ethics, Equality, and Risk, Cambridge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  79. Portmore, Douglas (2011): Commonsense Consequentialism. Wherein Morality Meets Rationality, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  80. Lawlor, Rob (2009): Shades of Goodness. Gradability, Demandingness and the Structure of Moral Theories, Houndmills. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  81. Hurley, Paul (2009): Beyond Consequentialism, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  82. Weinstein, D. (2007): Utilitarianism and the New Liberalism, Cambridge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  83. Mendola, Joseph (2006): Goodness and Justice. A Consequentialist Moral Theory, Cambridge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  84. Mulgan, Tim (2006): Future People. A Moderate Consequentialist Account of Our Obligations to Future Generations, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  85. Stein, Mark S. (2006): Distributive Justice and Disability. Utilitarianism against Egalitarianism, New Haven und London. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  86. Gesang, Bernward (2003): Eine Verteidigung des Utilitarismus, Stuttgart. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  87. Rosen, Frederick (2003): Classical Utilitarianism from Hume to Mill, London. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  88. Mulgan, Tim (2001): The Demands of Consequentialism, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  89. Hooker, Brad (2000): Ideal Code, Real World. A Rule-Consequentialist Theory of Morality, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  90. Kagan, Shelly (1998): Normative Ethics, Boulder. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  91. Tännsjö, Torbjörn (1998): Hedonistic Utilitarianism, Edinburgh. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  92. Bailey, James Wood (1997): Utilitarianism, Institutions, and Justice, New York, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  93. Feldman, Fred (1997): Utilitarianism, Hedonism, and Desert. Essays in Moral Philosophy, New York. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  94. Cummiskey, David (1996): Kantian Consequentialism, New York, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  95. Carlson, Erik (1995): Consequentialism Reconsidered, Dordrecht. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  96. Goodin, Robert E. (1995): Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy, Cambridge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  97. Hayry, Matti (1994): Liberal Utilitarianism and Applied Ethics, London. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  98. Harrison, Jonathan (1993): Ethical Essays: Vol. 1, Aldershot, 3––123 (»“Part A: Utilitarianism«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  99. MacLean, Anne (1993): The Elimination of Morality. Reflections on Utilitarianism and Bioethics, London. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  100. Nida-Rümelin, Julian (1993): Kritik des Konsequentialismus, München. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  101. Brandt, Richard B. (1992): Morality, Utilitarianism, and Rights, Cambridge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  102. Barrow, Robin (1991): Utilitarianism. A Contemporary Statement, Aldershot. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  103. Ebenstein, Lanny (1991): The Greatest Happiness Principle. An Examination of Utilitarianism, New York, London. Reprint: Abingdon, New York 2018. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  104. Sheng, C. L. (1991): A New Approach to Utilitarianism: A Unified Utilitarian Theory and its Application to Distributive Justice, Dordrecht. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  105. Brink, David O. (1989): Moral Realism and the Foundations of Ethics, Cambridge, 211––90 (»“Objective Utilitarianism«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  106. Kagan, Shelly (1989): The Limits of Morality, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  107. Hardin, Russell (1988): Morality within the Limits of Reason, Chicago. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  108. Haslett, D. W.D. W. (1987): Equal Consideration. A Theory of Moral Justification, Newark. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  109. Trapp, Rainer W. (1988): »„Nicht-klassischer«“ Utilitarismus. Eine Theorie der Gerechtigkeit, Frankfurt a. M. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  110. Feldman, Fred (1986): Doing the Best We Can, Dordrecht. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  111. Griffin, James (1986): Well-being. Its Meaning, Measurement, and Moral Importance, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  112. Slote, Michael (1985): Common-sense Morality and Consequentialism, London. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  113. Parfit, Derek (1984): Reasons and Persons, Oxford (Teile I und IV). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  114. Scheffler, Samuel (1982): The Rejection of Consequentialism. A Philosophical Investigation of the Considerations Underlying Rival Moral Conceptions, Oxford 1994 (Revised Edition). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  115. Hare, R. M.R. M. (1981): Moral Thinking. Its Levels, Method, and Point, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  116. Regan, Donald (1980): Utilitarianism and Co-Operation, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  117. Brandt, Richard B. (1979): A Theory of the Good and the Right, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  118. Williams, Bernard (1979): Kritik des Utilitarismus, herausgegeben und übersetzt von Wolfgang R. Köhler, Frankfurt a. M.a. M. (Übersetzung von Williams’ Aufsatz »“A Critique of Utilitarianism«” aus Smart/Williams: Utilitarianism for and against (1973)). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  119. Smart, J. J. C./Williams, Bernard (1973): Utilitarianism for and against, Cambridge 1987. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  120. Hoerster, Norbert (1971): Utilitaristische Ethik und Verallgemeinerung, Freiburg, München. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  121. Norman, Richard (1971): Reasons for Action. A Critique of Utilitarian Rationality, Oxford, New York. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  122. Hodgson, D. H. (1967): Consequences of Utilitarianism. A Study in Normative Ethics and Legal Theory, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  123. Narveson, Jan (1967): Morality and Utility, Baltimore. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  124. Bergström, L. (1966): The Alternatives and Consequences of Actions. An Essay on Certain Fundamental Notions in Teleological Ethics, Stockholm. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  125. Rescher, Nicholas (1966): Distributive Justice. A Constructive Critique of the Utilitarian Theory of Distribution, Lanham 1982. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  126. Lyons, David (1965): Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  127. Moore, G. E.G. E. (1912): Ethics, Oxford. – Ethics and »“The Nature of Moral Philosophy«”, hrsg. von William H. Shaw, Oxford 2005. – Grundprobleme der Ethik, München 1975. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  128. Sidgwick, Henry (1907): The Methods of Ethics, 7. Auflage, Indianapolis 1981. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  129. Argumente für den Konsequentialismus und Utilitarismus Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  130. de Lazari-Radek, Katarzyna/Singer, Peter (2017): Utilitarianism. A Very Short Introduction, Oxford, 16––41 (»“Justification«”) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  131. Birnbacher, Dieter (2016): Eine Begründung des Utilitarismus, in Texte zum Utilitarismus, hrsg. von Jörg Schroth, Stuttgart, 211––37. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  132. Pettit, Philip (2012): The Inescapability of Consequentialism in Luck, Value, and Commitment. Themes from the Ethics of Bernard Williams, hrsg. von Ulrike Heuer und Gerald Lang, Oxford, 41––70. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  133. Mulgan, Tim (2007): Understanding Utilitarianism, Stocksfield, 45––60 (»“Proofs of Utilitarianism«”), 131f. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  134. Shaver, Robert (2004): The Appeal of Utilitarianism, Utilitas 16, 235––50. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  135. Noggle, Robert (2003): Resisting the Seductive Appeal of Consequentialism: Goals, Options, and Non-quantitative Mattering, Utilitas 15, 279––307. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  136. Shaw, William H. (1999): Contemporary Ethics. Taking Account of Utilitarianism, Oxford, 68––101 (»“Arguing for Utilitarianism«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  137. Singer, Peter (1993): Practical Ethics, 2. Auflage, Cambridge, 12––14. – Praktische Ethik. 2., revidierte und erweiterte Auflage, Stuttgart 1994, 29––31 (wiederabgedruckt in Texte zum Utilitarismus, hrsg. von Jörg Schroth, Stuttgart 2016, 208––10). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  138. Holbrook, Daniel (1991): Consequentialism: The Philosophical Dog That Does Not Bark? Utilitas 3, 107––12. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  139. Kymlicka, Will (1990): Contemporary Political Philosophy. An Introduction, Oxford, 30––35 (2. Auflage, Oxford 2002, 32––37) (»“Two Arguments for Utility-Maximization«”). – Politische Philosophie heute: eine Einführung, Frankfurt a. M.a. M. 1996, 39––44 (»“Zwei Argumente für die Nutzenmaximierung«”) (wiederabgedruckt in Texte zum Utilitarismus, hrsg. von Jörg Schroth, Stuttgart 2016, 245––53). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  140. Kupperman, Joel J. (1981): A Case for Consequentialism, American Philosophical Quarterly 18, 305––13. Wiederabgedruckt in Consequentialism, hrsg. von Philip Pettit, Aldershot 1993, 3––11. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  141. Globaler Konsequentialismus Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  142. Greaves, Hilary (2020): Global Consequentialism, in The Oxford Handbook of Consequentialism, hrsg. von Douglas W. Portmore, Oxford, 423––40. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  143. Driver, Julia (2014): Global Utilitarianism, in The Cambridge Companion to Utilitarianism, hrsg. von Ben Eggleston und Dale E. Miller, Cambridge, 166––76. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  144. Driver, Julia (2012): Consequentialism, London, 145––53 (»“Global Consequentialism«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  145. Streumer, Bart (2003): Can Consequentialism Cover Everything? Utilitas 15, 237––47. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  146. Pettit, Philip/Smith, Michael (2000): Global Consequentialism, in Morality, Rules, and Conse-quences. A Critical Reader, hrsg. von Brad Hooker, Elinor Mason und Dale E. Miller, Edinburgh, 121––33. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  147. Konsequentialisierung Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  148. Eine in unregelmäßigen Abständen aktualisierte Bibliographie zur Konsequentialisierung kann auf www.ethikseite.de/bib/bib.htmlwww.ethikseite.de/bib/bib.html als PDF-Datei heruntergeladen werden. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  149. Muñoz, Daniel (2021): The Rejection of Consequentializing, Journal of Philosophy 118, 79––96. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  150. Hurley, Paul (2020): Consequentializing, in The Oxford Handbook of Consequentialism, hrsg. von Douglas W. Portmore, Oxford, 25––45. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  151. Betzler, Monika/Schroth, Jörg (2018): The Good of Consequentialized Deontology, in Consequentialism: New Directions, New Problems, hrsg. von Christian Seidel, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 115––135. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  152. Betzler, Monika/Schroth, Jörg (2014): Konsequentialisierung – Königsweg oder Sackgasse für den Konsequentialismus?, in Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 68, 279––304. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  153. Hurley, Paul (2013): Consequentializing and Deontologizing: Clogging the Conse-quentialist Vacuum, in Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics 3, hrsg. von Mark Timmons, Oxford, 123––53. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  154. Brown, Campbell (2011): Consequentialize This, Ethics 121, 749––71. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  155. Dreier, James (2011): In Defense of Consequentializing, in Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics 1, hrsg. von Mark Timmons, Oxford, 97––119. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  156. Portmore, Douglas W. (2011): Commonsense Consequentialism. Wherein Moral-ity Meets Rationality, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  157. Sachs, Benjamin (2010): Consequentialism’s Double-Edged Sword, Utilitas 22, 258––71. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  158. Portmore, Douglas W. (2009): Consequentializing, Philosophy Compass 4, 329––47. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  159. Konsequentialismus und der Vorrang des Guten Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  160. Freeman, Samuel (1994): Utilitarianism, Deontology, and the Priority of Right, Philosophy and Public Affairs 23, 313––49. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  161. Kymlicka, Will (1988): Rawls on Teleology and Deontology, Philosophy and Public Affairs 17, 173––90. Revidierte Version: The Right and the Good, in Kymlicka, Liberalism, Community and Culture, Oxford 1989, 21––43. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  162. Konsequentialismus und die Nichtberücksichtigung der Verschiedenheit der Personen Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  163. Brink, David O. (2020): Consequentialism, the Separateness of Persons, and Aggregation, in The Oxford Handbook of Consequentialism, hrsg. von Douglas W. Portmore, Oxford, 378––400. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  164. Chappell, Richard Yetter (2015): Value Receptacles, Noûs 49, 322––32. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  165. Hirose, Iwao (2015): Moral Aggregation, Oxford, 64––88 (»“Aggregation and the Separateness of Persons«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  166. Hyams, Keith (2015): Hypothetical Choice, Egalitarianism and the Separateness of Persons, Utilitas 27, 217––39. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  167. Schnüriger, Hubert (2014): Eine Statustheorie moralischer Rechte, Münster, 271––76 (»„Der Einwand der Verschiedenheit der Menschen«“). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  168. Hirose, Iwao (2013): Aggregation and the Separateness of Persons, Utilitas 25, 182––205. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  169. Otsuka, Michael (2012): Prioritarianism and the Separateness of Persons, Utilitas 24, 365––80. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  170. Voorhoeve, Alex/Fleurbaey, Marc (2012): Egalitarianism and the Separateness of Persons, Utilitas 24, 381––98. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  171. Hinton, Timothy (2009): Rights, Duties and the Separateness of Persons, Philosophical Papers 38, 73––91. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  172. Norcross, Alastair (2009): Two Dogmas of Deontology. Aggregation, Rights, and the Separateness of Persons, Social Philosophy and Policy 26, 76––95. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  173. Zwolinski, Matt (2008): The Separateness of Persons and Liberal Theory, Journal of Value Inquiry 42, 147––65. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  174. Vallentyne, Peter (2006): Against Maximizing Act Consequentialism, in Contemporary Debates in Moral Theory, hrsg. von James Dreier, Oxford, 21––36. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  175. Laden, Anthony Simon (2005): Taking the Distinction Between Persons Seriously, in The Legacy of John Rawls, hrsg. von Thom Brooks und Fabian Freyenhagen, London, 50––66. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  176. Shaw, William H. (1999): Contemporary Ethics. Taking Account of Utilitarianism, Oxford, 124–-28 (»“Separateness of Persons«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  177. Kliemt, Hartmut (1998): Rawls’ Kritik am Utilitarismus, in John Rawls, Eine Theorie der Gerechtigkeit, hrsg. von Otfried Höffe, Berlin, 97––116. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  178. Brink, David O. (1997): Rational Egoism and the Separateness of Persons, in Reading Parfit, hrsg. von Jonathan Dancy, Oxford, 96––134. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  179. Brink, David O. (1993): The Separateness of Persons, Distributive Norms, and Moral Theory, in Value, Welfare, and Morality, hrsg. von R. G.R. G. Frey und Christopher W. Morris, Cambridge, 252––89. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  180. Brink, David O. (1989): Moral Realism and the Foundations of Ethics, Cambridge, 283––90 (»“The Separateness of Persons«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  181. McKerlie, Denins (1988): Egalitarianism and the Separateness of Persons, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 18, 205––26. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  182. Raz, Joseph (1986): The Morality of Freedom, Oxford, 271–-77 (»“Separateness of Persons: Trade-Offs«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  183. Rawls, John (1971): A Theory of Justice, Oxford, 22––27 (Revised Edition, Cambridge, Mass., 1999, 20––24). – Eine Theorie der Gerechtigkeit, Frankfurt a. M.a. M. 1979, 40––45. Wiederabgedruckt in Texte zum Utilitarismus, hrsg. von Jörg Schroth, Stuttgart 2016, 238––44. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  184. Konsequentialismus und die Unvorhersehbarkeit zukünftiger Konsequenzen Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  185. Bykvist, Krister (2020): Consequentialism, Ignorance, and Uncertainty, in The Oxford Handbook of Consequentialism, hrsg. von Douglas W. Portmore, Oxford, 310––30. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  186. Greaves, Hilary (2016): Cluelessness, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 116, 311––39. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  187. Burch-Brown, Joanna M. (2014): Clues for Consequentialists, Utilitas 26, 105––19. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  188. Dorsey, Dale (2012): Consequentialism, Metaphysical Realism and the Argument from Cluelessness, Philosophical Quarterly 62, 48––70. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  189. Lang, Gerald (2008): Consequentialism, Cluelessness, and Indifference, Journal of Value Inquiry 42, 477––85. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  190. Cowen, Tyler (2006): The Epistemic Problem Does Not Refute Consequentialism, Utilitas 18, 383––99. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  191. Feldman, Fred (2006): Actual Utility, The Objection from Impracticality, and the Move to Expected Utility, Philosophical Studies 129, 49––79. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  192. Wiland, Eric (2005): Monkeys, Typewriters, and Objective Consequentialism, Ratio 18, 352––60. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  193. Mason, Elinor (2004): Consequentialism and the Principle of Indifference, Utilitas 16, 316––21. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  194. Miller, Dale E. (2003): Actual-Consequence Act Utilitarianism and the Best Possible Humans, Ratio 16, 49––62. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  195. Lenman, James (2000): Consequentialism and Cluelessness, Philosophy and Public Affairs 29, 342––70. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  196. Carlson, Erik (1999): The Oughts and Cans of Objective Consequentialism, Utilitas 11, 91––96. – Zu Howard-Snyder (1997). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  197. Qizilbash, Mozaffar (1999): The Rejection of Objective Consequentialism: A Comment, Utilitas 11, 97––105. – Zu Howard-Snyder (1997). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  198. Howard-Snyder, Frances (1999): Response to Carlson und Qizilbash, Utilitas 11, 106––11. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  199. Howard-Snyder, Frances (1997): The Rejection of Objective Consequentialism, Utilitas 9, 241––248. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  200. Frazier, Robert L. (1994): Act-Utilitarianism and Decision Procedures, Utilitas 6, 43––53. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  201. Norcross, Alastair (1990): Consequentialism and the Unforeseeable Future, Analysis 50, 253––56. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  202. Konsequentialismus und Freundschaft, Parteilichkeit sowie persönliche Beziehungen Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  203. Jeske, Diane (2020): Consequentialism and Partiality, in The Oxford Handbook of Consequentialism, hrsg. von Douglas W. Portmore, Oxford, 238––52. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  204. Woodcock, Scott (2010): When Will Your Consequentialist Friend Abandon You for the Greater Good?, Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 4 (2), 1––23. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  205. Upton, Candace L. (2008): Context, Character and Consequentialist Friendships, Utilitas 20, 334––47. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  206. McElreath, F. Scott (2006): Maximizing Act Consequentialism and Friendship, Journal of Value Inquiry 40, 413––20. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  207. Tedesco, Matthew (2006): Indirect Consequentialism, Suboptimality, and Friendship, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87, 567––77. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  208. Card, Robert F. (2004): Consequentialism, Teleology, and the New Friendship Critique, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 85, 149––72. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  209. Byron, Michael (2002): Consequentialist Friendship and Quasi-instrumental Goods, Utilitas 14, 249––57. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  210. Conee, Earl (2001): Friendship and Consequentialism, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 79, 161––79. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  211. Shaw, William H. (1999): Contemporary Ethics. Taking Account of Utilitarianism, Oxford, 268––75 (»“Those Who Are Near and Dear«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  212. Mason, Elinor (1998): Can an Indirect Consequentialist be a Real Friend?, Ethics 108, 386––93. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  213. Cocking, Dean/Oakley, Justin (1995): Indirect Consequentialism, Friendship, and the Problem of Alienation, Ethics 106, 86––111. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  214. Gomberg, Paul (1992): Friendship in the Context of a Consequentialist Life, Ethics 102, 552––54. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  215. Badhwar Kapur, Neera (1991): Why It Is Wrong to Be Always Guided by the Best: Consequentialism and Friendship, Ethics 101, 483––504. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  216. Wilcox, William H. (1987): Egoists, Consequentialists, and Their Friends, Philosophy and Public Affairs 16, 73––84. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  217. Konsequentialismus und Integrität der Person Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  218. Scherkoske, Greg (2013): Whither Integrity II: Integrity and Impartial Morality, Philosophy Compass 8, 40––52. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  219. Driver, Julia (2012): Consequentialism, London, 52––65 (»“Causing good and negative responsibility«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  220. Hurley, Paul (2009): Beyond Consequentialism, Oxford, 62––105 (»“Harnessing Williams to Sharpen the Challenge to Consequentialism«” (nur im Kontext der vorigen Kapitel verständlich)). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  221. Markovits, Daniel (2009): The Architecture of Integrity, in Reading Bernard Williams, hrsg. von Daniel Callcut, Abingdon, 110––38. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  222. Chappell, Timothy (2007): Integrity and Demandingness, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 10, 255––65. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  223. Jenkins, Mark P. (2006): Bernard Williams, Chesham: Acumen, 29––34 (»“Integrity: actions«”), 35––40 (»“Integrity: feelings«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  224. Cox, Damian (2005): Integrity, Commitment, and Indirect Consequentialism, Journal of Value Inquiry 39, 61––73. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  225. Cox, Damian/La Caze, Marguerite/Levine, Michael P. (2003): Integrity and the Fragile Self, Aldershot, 73––100 (»“Integrity and Utilitarian Moral Theory«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  226. Ashford, Elizabeth (2000): Utilitarianism, Integrity, and Partiality, Journal of Philosophy 97, 421––39. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  227. Harcourt, Edward (1998): Integrity, Practical Deliberation and Utilitarianism, Philosophical Quarterly 48, 189––98. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  228. Crisp, Roger (1997): Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Mill on Utilitarianism, London, 135––53 (»“Integrity«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  229. Schaber, Peter (1997): Moralischer Realismus, Freiburg, München, 328––36. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  230. Nida-Rümelin, Julian (1993): Kritik des Konsequentialismus, München, 90––94 (»„Integrität der Person«“). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  231. Conly, Sarah (1983): Utilitarianism and Integrity, Monist 66, 299––311. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  232. Davis, Nancy (1980): Utilitarianism and Responsibility, Ratio 22, 15––35. – Utilitarismus und Verantwortlichkeit, Ratio 22 (deutsche Ausgabe), 16––37. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  233. Williams, Bernard (1976): Utilitarianism and Moral Self-indulgence, in Williams, Moral Luck. Philosophical Papers 1973––1980, Cambridge 1981, 40––53. – Utilitarismus und moralische Selbstgefälligkeit, in Williams, Moralischer Zufall. Philosophische Aufsätze 1973––1980, Köngistein/Ts. 1984, 50––64. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  234. Harris, John (1974): Williams on Negative Responsibility and Integrity, Philosophical Quarterly 24, 265––73. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  235. Williams, Bernard (1973): A Critique of Utilitarianism, in J. J.J. J. C. Smart und Bernard Williams, Utilitarianism for and against, Cambridge 1987, 75––150: 108ff.. – Kritik des Utilitarismus, Frankfurt a. M. 1979, 72 ff. (Auch in Texte zum Utilitarismus, hrsg. von Jörg Schroth, Stuttgart 2016, 286 ff.) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  236. Konsequentialismus und Kant Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  237. Forschler, Scott (2013): Kantian and Consequentialist Ethics: The Gap Can Be Bridged, Metaphilosophy 44, 88––104. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  238. Bambauer, Christoph (2011): Deontologie und Teleologie in der kantischen Ethik, Freiburg im Breisgau. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  239. Wood, Allen (2008): Kantian Ethics vs. ›‘Consequentialism‹’, in ders., Kantian Ethics, Cambridge, 259––69. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  240. Timmermann, Jens (2005): Why Kant Could not Have Been a Utilitarian, Utilitas 17, 243––64. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  241. Kagan, Shelly (2002): Kantianism for Consequentialists, in Immanuel Kant. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Edited and translated by Allen W. Wood, New Haven and London, 111––56. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  242. Cummiskey, David (1996): Kantian Consequentialism, New York, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  243. Hare, R. M.R. M. (1997): Could Kant Have Been A Utilitarian? in ders., Sorting Out Ethics, Oxford, 147––65. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  244. Konsequentialismus und Rechte Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  245. Pettit, Philip (1988): The Consequentialist Can Recognise Rights, Philosophical Quarterly 38, 42––55. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  246. Sumner, L. W.L. W. (1987): The Moral Foundation of Rights, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  247. Frey, R. G.R. G. (Hrsg.) (1985): Utility and Rights, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  248. Brandt, Richard B. (1984): Utilitarianism and Moral Rights, in ders., Morality, Utilitarianism, and Rights, Cambridge 1992, 196––212. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  249. Gibbard, Allan (1984): Utilitarianism and Human Rights, in Social Philosophy and Policy 1, Nr. 2: Human Rights, hrsg. von Ellen Frankel Paul, Jeffrey Paul und Fred D. Miller, Oxford, 92––102. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  250. Gray, John (1984): Indirect Utility and Fundamental Rights, Social Philosophy and Policy 1, Nr. 2: Human Rights, hrsg. von Ellen Frankel Paul, Jeffrey Paul und Fred D. Miller, Oxford, 73––91. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  251. Scanlon, T. M. (1977): Rights, Goals, and Fairness, Erkenntnis 11, 81––95. Revidierte Version in Public and Private Morality, hrsg. von Stuart Hampshire, Cambridge 1978, 93––111. Wiederabgedruckt in Consequentialism and Its Critics, hrsg. von Samuel Scheffler, Oxford 1988, 75––92 sowie in Scanlon, The Difficulty of Tolerance. Essays in Political Philosophy, Cambridge 2003, 26––41. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  252. Konsequentialismus und Überforderung Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  253. Sobel, David (2020): Understanding the Demandingness Objection, in The Oxford Handbook of Consequentialism, hrsg. von Douglas W. Portmore, Oxford, 221––37. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  254. Tanyi, Attila (2014): Moral Demands and Ethical Theory: The Case of Consequentialism, in The Bloomsbury Companion to Analytic Philosophy, hrsg. von Barry Dainton und Howard Robinson, London u. a.u. a., 500––527. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  255. Bruder, Martin/Tanyi, Attila (2014): Overdemanding Consequentialism? An Experimental Approach, Utilitas 26, 250––75. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  256. de Lazari-Radek, Katarzyna/Singer, Peter (2014): The Point of View of the Universe. Sidgwick and Contemporary Ethics, Oxford, 317––36 (»“Demandingness«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  257. McElwee, Brian (2011): Impartial Reasons, Moral Demands, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14, 457––66. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  258. Tedesco, Matthew (2011): Intuitions and the Demands of Consequentialism, Utilitas 23, 94––104. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  259. Bykvist, Krister (2010): Utilitarianism. A Guide for the Perplexed, London, 98––111 (»“Is Utilitarianism Too Demanding?«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  260. Carter, Alan (2009): Is Utilitarian Morality Necessarily too Demanding? in The Problem of Demandingness. New Philosophical Essays, hrsg. von Timothy Chappell, Houndmills, Basingstoke, 163––84. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  261. Hooker, Brad (2009): The Demandingness Objection, in The Problem of Demandingness. New Philosophical Essays, hrsg. von Timothy Chappell, Houndmills, Basingstoke, 148––62. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  262. Sobel, David (2007): The Impotence of the Demandingness Objection, Philosophers’ Imprint 7, No. 8, 1––17. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  263. Gesang, Bernward (2003): Eine Verteidigung des Utilitarismus, Stuttgart, 98––135 (»„Über–for-derung – Muss der Utilitarist wie ein Heiliger leben?«“). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  264. Mulgan, Tim (2001): The Demands of Consequentialism, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  265. Scarre, Geoffrey (1996): Utilitarianism, London, 182––204 (»“Utilitarianism and Personality«”) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  266. Brink, David O. (1986): Utilitarian Morality and the Personal Point of View, Journal of Philosophy 83, 417––38. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  267. Kagan, Shelly (1984): Does Consequentialism Demand Too Much?, Philosophy and Public Affairs 13, 239––54. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  268. Objektiver, subjektiver und prospektiver Konsequentialismus (tatsächliche vs. zu erwartende Konsequenzen)Objektiver, subjektiver und prospektiver Konsequentialismus Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  269. Andrić, Vuko (2021): From Value to Rightness. Consequentialism, Action-Guidance, and the Perspective-Dependence of Moral Duties, New York und Abingdon. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  270. Andrić, Vuko (2016): Is Objective Consequentialism Compatible with the Principle that ›‘Ought‹’ Implies ›‘Can‹’, Philosophia 44, 63––77. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  271. Andrić, Vuko (2015): Objective Consequentialism and the Rationales of ‘»“Ought«” Implies »“Can«”’, Ratio (New Series) 30, 72––87. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  272. Mason, Elinor (2014): Objectivism, Subjectivism, and Prospectivism, in The Cambridge Companion to Utilitarianism, hrsg. von Ben Eggleston und Dale E. Miller, Cambridge 2014, 177––98. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  273. Andrić, Vuko (2013): Objective Consequentialism and the Licensing Dilemma, Philosophical Studies 162, 547––66. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  274. Mason, Elinor (2013): Objectivism and Prospectivism about Rightness, Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 7 (2), 1––21. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  275. Timmons, Mark (2013): Moral Theory: An Introduction, 2. Auflage, Lanham, 132––36 (»“Actual versus Expected Consequences«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  276. Driver, Julia (2012): What the Objective Standard is Good For, Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics 2, hrsg. von Mark Timmons, Oxford, 28––44. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  277. Zimmerman, Michael J. (2008): Living with Uncertainty. The Moral Significance of Ignorance, Cambridge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  278. Feldman, Fred (2006): Actual Utility, the Objection from Impracticality, and the Move to Expected Utility, Philosophical Studies 129, 49––79. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  279. Zimmermann, Michael J. (2006): Is Moral Obligation Subjective or Objective?, Utilitas 18, 329––61. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  280. Birnbacher, Dieter (2003): Analytische Einführung in die Ethik, Berlin 2003 (2. Auflage: 2007), 177––86. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  281. Miller, Dale E. (2003): Actual-Consequence Act Utilitarianism and the Best Possible Humans, Ratio 16, 49––62. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  282. Carlson, Erik (1999): The Oughts and Cans of Objective Consequentialism, Utilitas 11, 91––96. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  283. Howard-Snyder, Frances (1999): Response to Carlson and Qizilbash, Utilitas 11, 106––111. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  284. Qizilbash, Mozaffar (1999): The Rejection of Objective Consequentialism: A Comment, Utilitas 11, 97––105. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  285. Howard-Snyder, Frances (1997): The Rejection of Objective Consequentialism, Utilitas 9, 241––48. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  286. Jackson, Frank (1991): Decision-Theoretic Consequentialism and the Nearest and Dearest Objection, Ethics 101, 461––82. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  287. Strasser, Mark (1989): Actual versus Probable Utilitarianism, Southern Journal of Philosophy 27, 585––97. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  288. Singer, Marcus G. (1983): Further on Actual Consequence Utilitarianism, Mind 92, 270––74. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  289. Singer, Marcus G. (1982): Incoherence, Inconsistency and Moral Theory, Southern Journal of Philosophy 20, 375––91. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  290. Ellis, Brian (1981): Retrospective and Prospective Utilitarianism, Nous 15, 325––39. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  291. Galle, Peter (1981): Gruzalski and Ellis on Utilitarianism, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 59, 332––37 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  292. Gruzalski, Bart (1981): Forseeable Consequence Utilitarianism, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 59, 163––76. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  293. Lomasky, Loren E. (1978): Is Actual Consequence Utilitarianism Incoherent?, Southern Journal of Philosophy 16, 71––78. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  294. Temkin, Jack (1978): Actual Consequence Utilitarianism: A Reply to Professor Singer, Mind 87, 412––14. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  295. Singer, Marcus G. (1977): Actual Consequence Utilitarianism, Mind 86, 67––77. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  296. Öffentlichkeitsbedingung und Konsequentialismus als geheime (esoterische) Moral Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  297. de Lazari-Radek, Katarzyna/Singer, Peter (2014): The Point of View of the Universe. Sidgwick and Contemporary Ethics, Oxford, 292––312. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  298. Eggleston, Ben (2013): Rejecting the Publicity Condition: The Inevitability of Esoteric Morality, Philosophical Quarterly 63, 29––57. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  299. Cox, Damian (2012): Judgment, Deliberation, and the Self-effacement of Moral Theory, Journal of Value Inqiry 46, 289––302. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  300. de Lazari-Radek, Katarzyna/Singer, Peter (2010): Secrecy in Consequentialism. A Defence of Esoteric Morality, Ratio 23, 34––58. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  301. Hooker, Brad (2010): Publicity in Morality. A Reply to Katarzyna De Lazari-Radek and Peter Singer, Ratio 23, 111––17. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  302. Shaw, William H. (1999): Contemporary Ethics. Taking Account of Utilitarianism, Oxford, 152––55 (»“Sidgwick’s Moral Elitism«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  303. Coady, C. A.C. A. J. (1994): Sidgwick, in The Routledge History of Philosophy VII: The Nineteenth Century, hrsg. von C. L.C. L. Ten, London 1994, 101––21: 109––12 (»“Sidgwick’s Paradox«”), 112––14 (»“Assessing the Paradox«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  304. Langenfus, William L. (1989): Implications of a Self-Effacing Consequentialism, Southern Journal of Philosophy 27, 479––93. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  305. Williams, Bernard (1985): Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, London. (Third impression, with amendments: London 1993), 108––110. – Ethik und die Grenzen der Philosophie, Hamburg 1999, 155––57. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  306. Parfit, Derek (1984): Reasons and Persons, 1984, 40––43 (»“How C Might be Self-Effacing«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  307. Piper, Adrian M. S.M. S. (1978): Utility, Publicity, and Manipulation, Ethics 88, 189––206. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  308. Regelkonsequentialismus Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  309. Eine in unregelmäßigen Abständen aktualisierte Bibliographie zum Regelkonsequentialismus kann auf www.ethikseite.de/bib/bib.htmlwww.ethikseite.de/bib/bib.html als PDF-Datei heruntergeladen werden. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  310. Hooker, Brad (2020): The Role(s) of Rules in Consequentialist Ethics, in The Oxford Handbook of Consequentialism, hrsg. von Douglas W. Portmore, Oxford, 441––62. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  311. Hooker, Brad (2014): Acts or Rules? The Fine-tuning of Utilitarianism, in God, the Good, and Utilitarianism. Perspectives on Peter Singer, hrsg. von John Perry, Cambridge, 125––38. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  312. Miller, Dale E. (2014): Rule Utilitarianism, in The Cambridge Companion to Utilitarianism, hrsg. von Ben Eggleston und Dale E. Miller, Cambridge, 146––65. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  313. Hooker, Brad (2006): Right, Wrong, and Rule-Consequentialism, in The Black-well Guide to Mill’s Utilitarianism, hrsg. von Henry R. West, Oxford, 233––48. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  314. Hooker, Brad (2003): Rule-consequentialism, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, hrsg. von Edward N. Zalta, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism-rulehttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism-rule/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  315. Hooker, Brad/Mason, Elinor/Miller, Dale E. (Hrsg.) (2000): Morality, Rules, and Conse-quences. A Critical Reader, Edinburgh. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  316. Hooker, Brad (2000): Ideal Code, Real World. A Rule-consequentialist Theory of Morality, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  317. Hooker, Brad (2000): Rule-Consequentialism, in The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory, hrsg. von Hugh LaFollette, Oxford, 183––204. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  318. Richtigkeitskriterium vs. Entscheidungskriterium Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  319. Mulgan, Tim (2001): The Demands of Consequentialism, Oxford, 41––44 (»“The Distinction between Criteria and Procedures«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  320. Brink, David O. (1989): Moral Realism and the Foundations of Ethics, Cambridge, 256––62 (»“Criteria of Rightness, Decision Procedures, and Publicity«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  321. Bales, R. Eugene (1971): Act-Utilitarianism: Account of Right-Making Characteristics or Decision-Making Procedure?, American Philosophical Quarterly 8, 257––65. Wiederab-gedruckt in Consequentialism, hrsg. von Philip Pettit, Aldershot 1993, 61––69. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  322. Satisfizierender Konsequentialismus Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  323. Slater, Joe (2020): Satisficing Consequentialism Still Doesn’t Satisfy, Utilitas 32, 108––17. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  324. Chappell, Richard Yetter (2019): Willpower Satisficing, Noûs 53, 251––65. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  325. Rogers, Jason (2010): In Defense of a Version of Satisficing Consequentialism, Utilitas 22, 198––221. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  326. Bradley, Ben (2006): Against Satisficing Consequentialism, Utilitas 18, 97––108. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  327. Byron, Michael (Hrsg.) (2004): Satisficing and Maximizing: Moral Theorists on Practical Reason, Cambridge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  328. Turri, John (2005): You Can‘t Get Away with Murder That Easily. A Response to Timothy Mulgan, International Journal of Philosophical Studies 13, 489––92. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  329. Mulgan, Tim (2001): How Satisficers Get Away with Murder, International Journal of Philosophical Studies 9, 41––6. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  330. Mulgan, Tim (2001): The Demands of Consequentialism, Oxford, 128––42. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  331. Mulgan, Tim (1993): Slote’s Satisficing Consequentialism, Ratio (New Series) 6, 121––34. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  332. Hurka, Thomas (1990): Two Kinds of Satisficing, Philosophical Studies 59, 7––11. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  333. Slote, Michael (1989): Beyond Optimizing. A Study of Rational Choice, Cambridge, Mass. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  334. Slote, Michael (1985): Common-sense Morality and Consequentialism, London, 35––59 (»“Satisficing consequentialism«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  335. Slote, Michael (1984): Satisficing Consequentialism, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Suppl. 58, 139––63. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  336. Skalarer Konsequentialismus Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  337. Norcross, Alastair (2020): Morality by Degrees. Reasons without Demands, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  338. Tobia, Kevin Patrick (2017): A Defense of Scalar Utilitarianism, American Philosophical Quarterly 54, 283––93. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  339. Lang, Gerld (2013): Should Utilitarianism Be Scalar, Utilitas 25, 80––95. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  340. Driver, Julia (2012): Consequentialism, London, 44––52 (»“Scalar consequentialism«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  341. McElwee, Brian (2010): Consequentialism and Permissibility, Utilitas 21, 171––83. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  342. Lawlor, Rob (2009): Shades of Goodness. Gradability, Demandingness and the Structure of Moral Theories, Houndmills, 73––95 (»“Scalar Consequentialism: Morality without Requirements«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  343. Lawlor, Rob (2009): The Rejection of Scalar Consequentialism, Utilitas 21, 100––16. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  344. Norcross, Alastair (2006): Reasons Without Demands: Rethinking Rightness, in Contemporary Debates in Moral Theory, Oxford, 38––52. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  345. Norcross, Alastair (2006): The Scalar Approach to Utilitarianism, in The Blackwell Guide to Mill’s Utilitarianism, hrsg. von Henry R. West, Oxford, 217––32. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  346. Howard-Snyder, Frances/Norcross, Alastair (1993): A Consequentialist Case for Rejecting the Right, Journal of Philosophical Research 18, 109––25. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  347. Theorien des Guten Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  348. Shafer-Landau, Russ (2020): The Fundamentals of Ethics, 5. Auflage, Oxford (»“Part One: The Good Life«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  349. Hähnel, Martin/Schwarz, Maria (2018): Theorien des Guten zur Einführung, Hamburg. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  350. Cahn, Steven M./Vitrano, Christine (2015): Happiness and Goodness. Philosophical Reflections on Living Well, New York. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  351. Fenner, Dagmar (2007): Das gute Leben, Berlin. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  352. Birnbacher, Dieter (2003): Analytische Einführung in die Ethik, Berlin 2003 (2. Auflage: 2007), 241––78 (»„Theorien des nicht-moralisch Guten«“). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  353. Seel, Martin (1995): Versuch über die Form des Glücks. Studien zur Ethik, Frankfurt a. M.a. M. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  354. Steinfath, Holmer (Hrsg.) (1998): Was ist ein gutes Leben? Philosophische Reflexionen, Frankfurt a. M.a. M. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  355. Parfit, Derek (1984): Reasons and Persons, Oxford, 493––502 (»“What Makes Someone’s Life Go Best?«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  356. Welfarismus Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  357. Dorsey, Dale (2015): Welfarism, in The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Well-Being, hrsg. von Guy Fletcher, Milton Park, Abingdon, 417––28. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  358. Keller, Simon (2009): Welfarism, Philosophy Compass 4, 82––95. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  359. Holtug, Nils (2003): Welfarism – The Very Idea, Utilitas 15, 151––74. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  360. Crisp, Roger/Moore, Andrew (1996): Welfarism in Moral Theory, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74, 598––613. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  361. Wohlbefinden (Well-Being) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  362. Tiberius, Valerie (2018): Well-Being as Value Fulfillment. How We Can Help Each Other to Live Well, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  363. Alexandrova, Anna (2017): A Philosophy for the Science of Well-Being, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  364. Fletcher, Guy (2016): The Philosophy of Well-Being. An Introduction, Milton Park, Abingdon. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  365. Fletcher, Guy (Hrsg.) (2016): The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Well-Being, Milton Park, Abingdon. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  366. Bishop, Michael A. (2015): The Good Life. Unifying the Philosophy and Psychology of Well-Being, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  367. Bradley, Ben (2015): Well-Being, Cambridge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  368. Kraut, Richard (2013): Well-Being, in The International Encyclopedia of Ethics, hrsg. von Hugh LaFollette, Malden, MA, Band 9, 5442––50. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  369. Wessels, Ulla (2011): Das Gute. Wohlfahrt, hedonistisches Glück und die Erfüllung von Wünschen, Frankfurt a. M.a. M. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  370. Heathwood, Christopher (2010): Welfare, in The Routledge Companion to Ethics, hrsg. von John Skorupski, Milton Park, Abingdon, 645––55. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  371. Heybron, Daniel M. (2008): The Pursuit of Unhappiness. The Elusive Psychology of Well-Being, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  372. Kraut, Richard (2007): What Is Good and Why? The Ethics of Well-Being, Cambridge, Mass. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  373. Crisp, Roger (2001): Well-Being, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, hrsg. von Edward N. Zalta, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/well-beinghttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/well-being/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  374. Scanlon, T. M.T. M. (1998): What We Owe to Each Other, Cambridge, Mass., 108––143 (»“Well-Being«”). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  375. Sumner, L. W.L. W. (1996): Welfare, Happiness and Ethics, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  376. Griffin, James (1986): Well-Being. Its Meaning, Measurement, and Moral Importance, Oxford. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  377. Werte fördern (promoting values) vs. Werte achten (Honouring values) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  378. Pettit, Philip (1997): The Consequentialist Perspective, in: Marcia W. Baron, Philip Pettit und Michael Slote, Three Methods of Ethics, Oxford, 92––174: 126––33. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  379. McNaughton, David/Rawling, Piers (1992): Honouring and Promoting Values, Ethics 102, 835––43. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677
  380. Pettit, Philip (1991): Consequentialism, in A Companion to Ethics, hrsg. von Peter Singer, Oxford, 230––40: 230––33, 237. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783495999677

Similar publications

from the series "intro: Philosophie"
Cover of book: Theorien und Argumente der Theoretischen Philosophie
Textbook No access
Mark Siebel
Theorien und Argumente der Theoretischen Philosophie
Cover of book: Tugendethik
Textbook No access
Richard Friedrich Runge
Tugendethik
Cover of book: Theorien und Methoden der Wissenschaft
Textbook No access
Wolfgang Balzer
Theorien und Methoden der Wissenschaft

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Give feedback

We welcome your feedback on content and features. Your message helps us to continuously improve our service.

Rating
Attach images
or drag and drop
PNG or JPG (max. 3 MB)

Login

Forgotten your password?
Login via your Institution (SSO, Shibboleth, OpenAthens)
Don't have an account yet?
Register now

Cite publication

Download: RIS BibTex