Talk:Utilitarianism

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Utilitarianism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 100 days

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics
	Social and political philosophy

This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Effective Altruism High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Effective Altruism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relevant to effective altruism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Effective AltruismWikipedia:WikiProject Effective AltruismTemplate:WikiProject Effective AltruismEffective Altruism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Politics High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

referencing Jeremy Bentham's INTRODUCTION TO THE PRINCIPLES OF MORALS AND LEGISLATION

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PRINCIPLES OF MORALS AND LEGISLATION, Jeremy Bentham, 1789.

from Preface:

"Note.—The First Edition of this work was printed in the year 1780; and first published in 1789. The present Edition is a careful reprint of 'A New Edition, corrected by the Author,' which was published in 1823."

also

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Introduction_to_the_Principles_of_Morals_and_Legislation

Peter Singer on giving benefit of the doubt to shrimp and oysters.

“ . . . and in the first edition of this book I suggested that somewhere between shrimp and an oyster seems as good a place to draw the line as any. Accordingly, I continued occasionally to eat oysters, scallops, and mussels for some time after I became in every other respect, a vegetarian. But while one cannot with any confidence say that these creatures do feel pain, so one can equally have little confidence in saying that they do not feel pain. Moreover, if they do feel pain, a meal of oysters or mussels would inflict pain on a considerable number of creatures. Since it is so easy to avoid eating them, I now think it better to do so.” -Peter Singer, Animal Liberation. 1990, (171-174) http://www.wesleyan.edu/wsa/warn/singer_fish.htm

Key phrases

Every system needs key phrases that briefly describe it. May I proceed now? Zopyr (talk) 09:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and does not use keywords in this way. We have a short description (in this case "Ethical theory based on maximizing well-being"; and see WP:SDESC for further explanation). All other key elements should be mentioned in the lead (see MOS:LEAD). If you feel the current lead is inadequate, raise your issues here, but inserting a random "key phrases" section is not the way forward. GrindtXX (talk) 12:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

~~@Zopyr and @JoaquimCebuano~~

~~I saw this discussion at ANI. I think a discussion this talk page is warranted.CycoMa2 (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Discussion about what? Can Wikipedia be used as a source? It cannot. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much to discuss either. From the policy WP:CIRCULAR: "Do not use articles from Wikipedia ... as sources". The reverted edits used an article from Wikipedia as a source. Phlsph7 (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is also the sixth time that the doctor has tried to impose the edit since March. There apparent justification for doing so is the #Key phrases section above, which explains nothing and does not justify their edit. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I retract what I was said thenCycoMa2 (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]