Classifying theories of welfare

Woodard, Christopher

Abstract

This paper argues that we should replace the common classification of theories of welfare into the categories of hedonism, desire theories, and objective list theories. The tripartite classification is objectionable because it is unduly narrow and it is confusing: it excludes theories of welfare that are worthy of discussion, and it obscures important distinctions. In its place, the paper proposes two independent classifications corresponding to a distinction emphasised by Roger Crisp: a four-category classification of enumerative theories (about which items constitute welfare), and a four-category classification of explanatory theories (about why these items constitute welfare).

Citation

Woodard, C. (2013). Classifying theories of welfare. Philosophical Studies, 165(3), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-012-9978-4

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Publication Date: Sep 1, 2013
• Deposit Date: Apr 7, 2014
• Publicly Available Date: Apr 7, 2014
• Journal: Philosophical Studies
• Print ISSN: 0554-0739
• Electronic ISSN: 2153-8379
• Publisher: Philosophy Documentation Center
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 165
• Issue: 3
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-012-9978-4
• Keywords: Welfare; Typology: Explanatory question; Enumerative question.
• Public URL: https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1001405
• Publisher URL: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11098-012-9978-4