Why Subjectivists About Welfare Needn't Idealize

12Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

It is commonly thought that subjectivists about welfare must claim that the favorable attitudes whose satisfaction is relevant to your well-being are those that you would have in idealized conditions (e.g. ones in which you are fully informed and rational). I argue that this is false. I introduce a non-idealizing subjectivist view, Same World Subjectivism, that accommodates the two main rationales for idealizing: those given by Peter Railton and David Sobel. I also explain why a recent argument from Dale Dorsey fails to show that subjectivists must idealize. Because Same World Subjectivism is a plausible non-idealizing view, subjectivists about welfare needn't idealize.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lin, E. (2019). Why Subjectivists About Welfare Needn’t Idealize. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 100(1), 2–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/papq.12232

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free