Classifying theories of welfare
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 tha...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
Springer
2013
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/2662/ |
| _version_ | 1848790843227373568 |
|---|---|
| author | Woodard, Christopher |
| author_facet | Woodard, Christopher |
| author_sort | Woodard, Christopher |
| building | Nottingham Research Data Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | 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). |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T18:19:03Z |
| format | Article |
| id | nottingham-2662 |
| institution | University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus |
| institution_category | Local University |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T18:19:03Z |
| publishDate | 2013 |
| publisher | Springer |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | nottingham-26622020-05-04T20:18:55Z https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/2662/ Classifying theories of welfare Woodard, Christopher 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). Springer 2013-09 Article PeerReviewed Woodard, Christopher (2013) Classifying theories of welfare. Philosophical Studies, 165 (3). pp. 787-803. ISSN 1573-0883 Welfare; Typology: Explanatory question; Enumerative question. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11098-012-9978-4 doi:10.1007/s11098-012-9978-4 doi:10.1007/s11098-012-9978-4 |
| spellingShingle | Welfare; Typology: Explanatory question; Enumerative question. Woodard, Christopher Classifying theories of welfare |
| title | Classifying theories of welfare |
| title_full | Classifying theories of welfare |
| title_fullStr | Classifying theories of welfare |
| title_full_unstemmed | Classifying theories of welfare |
| title_short | Classifying theories of welfare |
| title_sort | classifying theories of welfare |
| topic | Welfare; Typology: Explanatory question; Enumerative question. |
| url | https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/2662/ https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/2662/ https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/2662/ |