Abstract
In this article I plead for utilitarianism as guideline for the editor. The article consists mostly of rebuttals of a number of traditional objections against utilitarianism. In particular (but not exclusively) the following objections are discussed:
1.It is impossible to predict the consequences of legislative measures.
2.Legislation should be evaluated procedurally (democratically), rather than by a substantive standard.
3.Utilitarianism allows the sacrifice of the interests or even rights of some on behalf of those of others.
4.Utilitarianism leads to results that are sometimes strongly counterintuitive.
A substantial part of the article consists of a discussion of coherentism as method for, amongst others, normative reasoning.
1.It is impossible to predict the consequences of legislative measures.
2.Legislation should be evaluated procedurally (democratically), rather than by a substantive standard.
3.Utilitarianism allows the sacrifice of the interests or even rights of some on behalf of those of others.
4.Utilitarianism leads to results that are sometimes strongly counterintuitive.
A substantial part of the article consists of a discussion of coherentism as method for, amongst others, normative reasoning.
| Original language | Dutch |
|---|---|
| Number of pages | 17 |
| Journal | Law and Method |
| Volume | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Jan 2015 |