Przejdź do treści
Analiza i Egzystencja
48 (2019)
OpenAlex

Dla całego czasopisma, według OpenAlex.

Cytowania
213
Publikacje
481
H-index
6
I10-index
2
Średnia cytowań (2 lata)
0,13
Cytowania w poszczególnych latach
Wykres cytowań czasopisma. Dokładne wartości są dostępne w tabeli poniżej. 2017: 4 2018: 13 2019: 11 2020: 17 2021: 27 2022: 22 2023: 21 2024: 32 2025: 34 2026: 19 2017 2026
Pokaż dane w tabeli
Cytowania w poszczególnych latach
RokPublikacjeCytowania
2017254
20182313
20192311
20202017
20212127
20222622
20232521
20242632
20252534
20262019

Dane pobrane:

Co oznaczają te liczby?

Publikacje i cytowania obejmują rekordy powiązane z tym czasopismem w OpenAlex. H-index to największa liczba h publikacji mających co najmniej h cytowań. I10-index to liczba publikacji cytowanych co najmniej 10 razy. Wykres przedstawia cytowania otrzymane w danym roku; bieżący rok jest niepełny. Zakres bazy może różnić się od WNUS i innych serwisów.

Średnia z 2 lat jest wskaźnikiem OpenAlex. Nie jest to Journal Impact Factor firmy Clarivate.

Zobacz w OpenAlex (nowa karta)
Google Scholar
Znajdź w Google Scholar (nowa karta)

Institutional Function Consequentialism

DOI: 10.18276/aie.2019.48-01
Cytuj

Pełny tekst jest dostępny

ISSN:1734-9923
eISSN:2300-7621
Autorzy: Krzysztof Saja ORCID
Uniwersytet Szczeciński
Słowa kluczowe: etyka prawo polityka konsekwencjalizm deontologia metodologia etyki funkcjonalizm
Data wydania numeru / monografii:2019
Liczba stron:21 (5-25)
OAI-PMH:Metadane
CC BY-SA Open Access DOAJ ERIH PLUS Scopus Diamond Discovery Hub
Kod QR

Abstrakt

In this paper, I present a new account of normative ethics that I call Institutional Function Consequentialism. It is a form of indirect consequentialism that focuses on the optimal harmony of institutions rather than on rules, motives or acts. It proposes one normative foundation for all social order that is composed of different institutions. This account can also be seen as method of consequentializing different rival theories such as Aristotelianism, stoicism, utilitarianism, contractarianism and contractualism.

PDF

Pobierz PDF
Podgląd PDF

Otwórz PDF

Bibliografia (44)
  1. Anscombe, G. E. M. (1958). Modern Moral Philosophy. Philosophy, 33(124), 1–19.
  2. Brandt, R. (1963). Toward a Credible Form of Utilitarianism. W H.-N. Castaneda & G. Nakhnikian (Red.), Morality and the Language of Conduct (s. 107–43).
  3. Brandt, R. (1992a). Fairness to Indirect Optimific Theories in Ethics. W Morality, utilitarianism, and rights (s. 137–157). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Brandt, R. (1992b). Morality and its Critics. W Morality, utilitarianism, and rights (s. 73–92). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Cummiskey, D. (1996). Kantian Consequentialism. New York: Oxford University Press.
  6. Darwall, S. (2006). The Second-Person Standpoint: Morality, Respect, and Accountability. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press.
  7. Dworkin, R., Nagel, T., Nozick, R., Rawls, J., & Thomson, J. J. (1997, marzec 27). Assisted Suicide: The Philosophers’ Brief. The New York Review of Books. Pobrano z http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1997/mar/27/assisted-suicide-the-philosophers-brief/
  8. Gauthier, D. P. (1986). Morals by Agreement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  9. Goodin, R. E. (1995). Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
  10. Goodin, R. E. (Red.). (1998). The theory of institutional design. Cambridge University Press.
  11. Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021847
  12. Greenberg, Y. K. (Red.). (2008). Encyclopedia of Love in World Religions (T. 2). Santa Barbara, Denver, Oxford: ABC-CLIO.
  13. Haidt, J. (2007). The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology. Science, 316(5827), 998–1002. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1137651
  14. Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Pantheon Books.
  15. Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2009). Planet of the Durkheimians, Where Community, Authority, and Sacredness are Foundations of Morality. W Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Pobrano z http://www.myilibrary.com?id=205361
  16. Hampton, J. (1986). Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition. Cambridge University Press.
  17. Hare, R. M. (1981). Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Methods and Point. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  18. Hellman, D. (2008). When Is Discrimination Wrong? Harvard University Press.
  19. Hooker, B. (2000). Ideal Code, Real World: a Rule-Consequentialist Theory of Morality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  20. Hooker, B., & Fletcher, G. (2008). Variable Versus Fixed-Rate Rule-Utilitarianism. The Philosophical Quarterly, 58(231), 344–352. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9213.2007.518.x
  21. Hosseini, S. R. (2013). Meaning in life: a Wittgensteinian approach. University of Johannesburg. Pobrano z https://ujdigispace.uj.ac.za/handle/10210/8676
  22. Hurka, T. (1996). Perfectionism (1st ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
  23. Kagan, S. (1989). The Limits of Morality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  24. Kagan, S. (2000). Evaluative focal points. W B. Hooker, E. Mason, & D. Miller (Red.), Morality, Rules, and Consequences: a Critical Reader (s. 134–155). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  25. Kamm, F. (2007). Intricate Ethics: Rights, Responsibilities, and Permissible Harm. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
  26. Kavka, G. (1986). Hobbesian Moral and Political Theory. Princeton University Press.
  27. Korsgaard, C. (1996). Creating the Kingdom of Ends. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
  28. Lousie, J. (2004). Relativity of Value and the Consequentialist Umbrella. The Philosophical Quarterly, 54(217), 518–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0031-8094.2004.00370.x
  29. MacIntyre, A. (1981). After Virtue: a Study in Moral Theory. University of Notre Dame Press.
  30. Mulgan, T. (2005). The Demands of Consequentialism. Oxford University Press.
  31. Murphy, L. B. (1998). Institutions and the Demands of Justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 27(4), 251–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.1998.tb00071.x
  32. Narveson, J. (1988). The Libertarian Idea. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
  33. Noddings, N. (1984). Caring, a Feminine Approach to Ethics & Moral Education. University of California Press.
  34. Parfit, D. (1997). Equality and Priority. Ratio, 10(3), 202–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9329.00041
  35. Parfit, D. (2011). On What Matters (T. I). Oxford University Press.
  36. Portmore, D. (2007). Consequentializing Moral Theories. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 88(1), 39–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0114.2007.00280.x
  37. Portmore, D. (2009). Consequentializing. Philosophy Compass, 4(2), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00198.x
  38. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: The Belknap.
  39. Ridge, M. (2006). Introducing Variable-Rate Rule-Utilitarianism. The Philosophical Quarterly, (223), 242–253.
  40. Ridge, M. (2009). Consequentialist Kantianism. Philosophical Perspectives, 23(1), 421–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1520-8583.2009.00178.x
  41. Scanlon, T. (1998). What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
  42. Singer, P. (1977). Animal Liberation. New York: Avon Books.
  43. Singer, P. (2009). The Life You Can Save. New York: Random House.
  44. Williams, G. (2006). Infrastructures of Responsibility: the Moral Tasks of Institutions. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 23(2), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5930.2006.00330.x