Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDorsey, Dale
dc.date.accessioned2015-02-27T19:34:52Z
dc.date.available2015-02-27T19:34:52Z
dc.date.issued2010-10
dc.identifier.citationDorsey, Dale. "Hutcheson's Deceptive Hedonism." The Journal of the History of Philosophy 48:4 2010 445-467

http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1353/hph.2010.0017
en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1808/16893
dc.description.abstractFrancis Hutcheson’s theory of value is often characterized as a precursor to the qualitative hedonism of John Stuart Mill. The interpretation of Mill as a qualitative hedonist has come under fire recently; some have argued that he is, in fact, a hedonist of no variety at all. Others have argued that his hedonism is as non-qualitative as Bentham’s. The purpose of this essay is not to critically engage the various interpretations of Mill’s value theory. Rather, I hope to show that Hutcheson should not be read as a qualitative hedonist. The evidence for Hutcheson as a qualitative hedonist is strong and striking. The most commonly cited passages are taken from his posthumous opus, A System of Moral Philosophy. However, a closer look at Hutcheson’s moral psychology, including his account of the interplay between pleasure and the moral and evaluative senses, shows that Hutcheson’s hedonism is best read quantitatively. Hutcheson’s hedonism is for that reason deceptive, and deceptively simple.en_US
dc.publisherJohn Hopkins University Pressen_US
dc.titleHutcheson's Deceptive Hedonismen_US
dc.typeArticle
kusw.kuauthorDorsey, Dale
kusw.kudepartmentDepartment of Philosphyen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1353/hph.2010.0017
kusw.oaversionScholarly/refereed, publisher version
kusw.oapolicyThis item does not meet KU Open Access policy criteria.
dc.rights.accessrightsopenAccess


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record