IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/ecnphi/v42y2026i2p343-373_5.html

Welfarism and continuity in ethical theory: a formal comparison of prospect utilitarianism vs. sufficientarianism

Author

Listed:
  • Cato, Susumu
  • Chung, Hun

Abstract

This paper offers a formal analysis of continuity, welfarism, value satiability, lifeboat cases, along with their interconnectedness with sufficientarianism, with particular attention to the recent defences of sufficientarianism by Ben Davies and Lasse Nielsen in response to Hun Chung’s Prospect Utilitarianism (PU). It demonstrates how precise formal definitions help resolve conceptual ambiguities and sharpen philosophical argumentation in distributive ethics. Without such precision, one risks misidentifying or mischaracterizing important normative concepts and theories, leading to confusion or strawman critiques. By highlighting these risks, the paper underscores the methodological importance of precise definitions and formal analysis in ensuring clarity, consistency, and rigor in ethical theorizing.

Suggested Citation

  • Cato, Susumu & Chung, Hun, 2026. "Welfarism and continuity in ethical theory: a formal comparison of prospect utilitarianism vs. sufficientarianism," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(2), pages 343-373, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:42:y:2026:i:2:p:343-373_5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0266267125100485/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:42:y:2026:i:2:p:343-373_5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/eap .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.