Publication Date



In this paper I register disagreement with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek and Peter Singer on three significant issues. First, Sidgwick does not give utilitarianism the advantage over Ros-sian pluralistic intuitionism. Both views are still very much in the running. Second, his du-alism survives their evolutionary argument. The egoist principle is no more or less vulner-able to debunking than the principle of impartial benevolence. Third, though his view on pleasure is not entirely clear, Sidgwick is best understood to be offering a traditional ‘feel-ing-tone’ account of pleasure, rather than a view which gives a significant role to the ‘ap-prehension’ of the subject.


Institute for Religion and Critical Inquiry

Document Type

Open Access Journal Article

Access Rights

Open Access

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Included in

Religion Commons