Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Nozick later explicitly raises the example of utility monsters to "embarrass [utilitarian theory]": since humans benefit from the mass sacrifice and consumption of animals, and also possess the ability to kill them painlessly (i.e., without any negative effect on the utilitarian calculation of net pleasure), it is permissible humans to maximise ...
Robert Nozick, a twentieth century American philosopher, coined the term "utility monster" in response to Jeremy Bentham's philosophy of utilitarianism.Nozick proposed that accepting the theory of utilitarianism causes the necessary acceptance of the condition that some people would use this to justify exploitation of others.
Entitlement theory is a theory of distributive justice and private property created by Robert Nozick in chapters 7 and 8 of his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia.The theory is Nozick's attempt to describe "justice in holdings" (Nozick 1974:150)—or what can be said about and done with the property people own when viewed from a principle of justice.
Nozick writes: Utilitarian theory is embarrassed by the possibility of utility monsters who get enormously greater sums of utility from any sacrifice of others than these others lose ... the theory seems to require that we all be sacrificed in the monster's maw. [8] It is also exemplified when Nozick writes:
The experience machine or pleasure machine is a thought experiment put forward by philosopher Robert Nozick in his 1974 book Anarchy, State, and Utopia. [1] It is an attempt to refute ethical hedonism by imagining a choice between everyday reality and an apparently preferable simulated reality.
"Anarchy, State, and Robert Nozick". Mises Daily. A distillation of Jonathan Wolff's criticisms of Nozick "The Squirrel and the State" – A Criticism of Nozick's Argument for the State by Nicolás Maloberti (The Independent Review 14.3, 2010) (subscription required) Robert Nozick's Political Philosophy, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Philosopher Robert Nozick accepted the reality of Weber's two kinds of rationality. He believed that conditional means are capable of achieving unconditional ends. He did not search traditional philosophies for value rational propositions about justice, as Rawls had done, because he accepted well-established utilitarian propositions, which Rawls found unacceptable.
An interview with Jan Narveson about the philosophy of Robert Nozick Archived 2013-12-30 at the Wayback Machine by Peter Jaworski; A review of Narveson's The Libertarian Idea and Respecting Persons in Theory and Practice; A debate between Narveson and Gary Francione on Radio Netherlands on the issue of animal rights.