عنوان مقاله [English]
Utilitarianism has undergone a variety of refinements since the early twentieth century. Modern utilitarians have attempted to address the criticisms by proposing their new interpretations of ‘maximization’ and/or ‘the good.’ It has brought about a vast variety of different and irreconcilable types of modern utilitarian approaches such as the ‘actualist/possibilist’ distinction, the ‘objectivist/subjectivist’ distinction, the ‘action-based/character-based’ distinction, the ‘maximizing/satisficing’ distinction, and the ‘hedonist/preferencist’ distinction. These distinctions are responses to the following questions about ‘maximization’ and ‘good’: Are the values that should be regarded in determining which option is the best, ‘the values of what would be the case were the agent to carry out the option’ or ‘the values that are possible for the agent in an ideal situation’? Is the moral quality of a feature of agency determined by ‘actual consequences’ or by what the agent ‘expects’ or ‘intends’ to be brought about by her actions? Is ‘the greatest good principle’ a criterion for evaluating ‘all features of agency’ or just the agent’s ‘actions’? Is the right action what ‘maximizes the good’ or what ‘satistices the good’? Which one is the sole intrinsic good: ‘pleasure’ or ‘preference’? This paper ‘describes’ and ‘analyzes’ the various approaches to different types of utilitarianism.