On The Thinness Of The Utilitarian Defense Of Private Property
Why did classical utilitarian thinkers offer only a thin defense of the institution of private property? Utilitarians might have viewed such a defense as irrelevant, trivial, or impossible. A fourth hypothesis holds that utilitarians were ambivalent about the institution, itself. The utilitarians are clear on the relevance of a defense. Triviality would have to be based on 18th century philosophers and historians. Impossibility would raise serious questions about the utilitarian project. Ambivalence seems the most plausible explanation. Utilitarian writings throw considerable doubt on their own commitment to the strongest versions of the defense of private property.
Volume (Year): 32 (2010)
Issue (Month): 01 (March)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://journals.cambridge.org/jid_HET
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jhisec:v:32:y:2010:i:01:p:63-83_99. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Keith Waters)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.