Is there a (Tenable) utilitarian foundation for justice and rights?
Adalet ve haklar için (savunulabilir) faydacı bir temel mevcut mu?
- Tez No: 912111
- Danışmanlar: DR. BART ENGELEN
- Tez Türü: Yüksek Lisans
- Konular: Felsefe, Philosophy
- Anahtar Kelimeler: Belirtilmemiş.
- Yıl: 2013
- Dil: İngilizce
- Üniversite: Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg
- Enstitü: Yurtdışı Enstitü
- Ana Bilim Dalı: Belirtilmemiş.
- Bilim Dalı: Belirtilmemiş.
- Sayfa Sayısı: 73
Özet
Kimi dusunurler (John Rawls ve David Lyons gibi) fayda ilkesinin eylem ve enstitusel kurallarin hakli cikarilmasinda yeterli bir kriter olmadigi icin reddedilmesini yahut en iyi durumda uygulamasinin kisitlanmasi gerektigini tartismistir. Bu tezin maksadi bu fikrin tam karsiti bir arguman sunmaktir. Tezin ilk kismi faydaci sistemler ve ilkeler uzerine genel bir tartisma yurutur. Ikinci kisimda hedef, yukarida bahsedilen genel goruse karsit 'dolayli faydacilik' diye tabir edilen bir yaklasim gelistirmektir. Son kisimda, dolayli faydacilik ve karsit goruslerin adalet ve haklar meselelerindeki benzer ve karsit gorsuleri eleştirel mukayese yoluyla incelenir.
Özet (Çeviri)
It has been argued by some philosophers (John Rawls and David Lyons for instance) that the principle of utility is not a sufficient criterion for the justification of actions and institutional rules, thus has to be rejected or its application has to be restricted at best. Their reasoning amounts to the following. (1) Individuals often come across situations where the principle of utility may favor acts which are questionable on the grounds of justice. (2) Utilitarian considerations fail to accommodate the existence of institutional (political-legal) and moral rights. (3) Utilitarianism as such is devoid of efficient means to address the demands of distributive justice. It is the burden of this work to argue otherwise by examining the following views. (1) Rights and liberties have to be taken seriously for they are constitutive elements of social utility or welfare (A famous defender of this view is John Stuart Mill). (2) Utility as an aggregative principle and justice as a distributive principle do not necessarily conflict with each other. The first chapter provides a general discussion on utilitarian systems and principles, and their strengths and weaknesses. In the second chapter, my aim is to address the above criticisms by adopting indirect utilitarian reasoning with respect to institutional arrangements, issues of justice and rights. In the final chapter, I point out the similarities and differences between Rawlsian and indirect utilitarian accounts of justice.
Benzer Tezler
- Free will and determinism: Are they even relevant to each other?
Özgür irade ve belirlenircilik: Birbirleriyle gerçekten ilgililer mi?
HASAN ÇAĞATAY
Doktora
İngilizce
2012
FelsefeOrta Doğu Teknik ÜniversitesiFelsefe Ana Bilim Dalı
PROF. DR. TEO GRÜNBERG
- Tokat Yüksek Kahve koruma projesi
Restoration project of the Yuksek Kahve in Tokat
SEDA YÜZER
Yüksek Lisans
Türkçe
2016
Mimarlıkİstanbul Teknik ÜniversitesiMimarlık Ana Bilim Dalı
PROF. DR. KEMAL KUTGÜN EYÜPGİLLER
- A Contrastive analysis of writing in Turkish and English of Turkish high school students
Başlık çevirisi yok
HÜSNÜ ENGİNARLAR
- İsviçre-Türk Borçlar Hukukuna göre sözleşmenin kurulmasında yanılma
Mistake in the formation of contract under the Swiss-Turkish Law of Obligations
ERHAN KANIŞLI