Robert Nozick argued against this doctrine by imagining a "monster" who gets increasing marginal returns, and Derek Parfit describes its "repugnant conclusion." One proponent of it evaluated the worth of acts with a "felicific calculus" in The Principles of Morals and Legislation.(*) Peter Singer favors a version of this philosophy which advocates maximally satisfying peoples' preferences; other varieties include the "rule" and "act" kinds. For 10 points, name this doctrine supported by John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, summarized as "the greatest good for the greatest number."
Robert Nozick argued against this doctrine by imagining a "monster" who gets increasing marginal returns, and Derek Parfit describes its "repugnant conclusion." One proponent of it evaluated the worth of acts with a "felicific calculus" in The Principles of Morals and Legislation.(*) Peter Singer favors a version of this philosophy which advocates maximally satisfying peoples' preferences; other varieties include the "rule" and "act" kinds. For 10 points, name this doctrine supported by John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, summarized as "the greatest good for the greatest number."
Robert Nozick argued against this doctrine by imagining a "monster" who gets increasing marginal returns, and Derek Parfit describes its "repugnant conclusion.