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-ca…
Read moreThis 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).
