![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Penal welfarism page were merged into Welfarism on 2011-03-22. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This may belong on both list of ethics topics and list of economics topics. Would suggest that the author review the following to include how they relate: social welfare function, welfare economics, Amartya Sen, human development, human development theory, human capital.
It does not explain what is welfarism. It just goes around the subject.
Welfarism is not a form of consequentialism. It is an axiological theory. Roughly speaking, welfarism + consequentialism = utilitarianism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.30.91 ( talk) 14:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The Penal welfarism article does not present sufficient information to stand on its own. It should be merged into this article. Neelix ( talk) 15:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
It should not be merged into the welfarism aticle, it can be one of the welfarsim sections, however penal welfarism deserves to be an article on its own. The simple definition provided is a good one, Garland (2001) provides an additional overview of penal welfarism and changes that took place to bring us to wehre we are now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.86.37 ( talk) 00:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Essetially the same concept. Agree with merge. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello
Carchasm, I saw that you added the tag "unfocused" to the article with the explanation all of the "welfarism is about X, but sometime it's about y" either is wrong or this article should be split
. I think we can exclude the first option ("either is wrong"): Welfarism is sometimes discussed as a theory of morality in general (Keller 2009). But it is most influential as a theory strictly of value (or the good) simpliciter
(Bramble 2021, first page). This leaves the second option: should the article be split? If the two senses were very different (like mouse as an
animal vs as an
input device), I would agree. However, the two senses here are very similar. Many of the arguments for and against welfarism apply to both and various theorists don't even explicitly distinguish between the two. This problem does not just pertain to welfarism: for many philosophical concepts and theories, different theorists use different definitions that are nonetheless covered by one Wikipedia article. For this reason, I think
WP:BROADCONCEPT is more applicable here than
WP:CONTENTSPLIT. What are your thoughts, should the article discuss the distinction between the two somehow differently? Any other thoughts on how it may be improved?
Phlsph7 (
talk)
09:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Penal welfarism page were merged into Welfarism on 2011-03-22. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This may belong on both list of ethics topics and list of economics topics. Would suggest that the author review the following to include how they relate: social welfare function, welfare economics, Amartya Sen, human development, human development theory, human capital.
It does not explain what is welfarism. It just goes around the subject.
Welfarism is not a form of consequentialism. It is an axiological theory. Roughly speaking, welfarism + consequentialism = utilitarianism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.30.91 ( talk) 14:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The Penal welfarism article does not present sufficient information to stand on its own. It should be merged into this article. Neelix ( talk) 15:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
It should not be merged into the welfarism aticle, it can be one of the welfarsim sections, however penal welfarism deserves to be an article on its own. The simple definition provided is a good one, Garland (2001) provides an additional overview of penal welfarism and changes that took place to bring us to wehre we are now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.86.37 ( talk) 00:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Essetially the same concept. Agree with merge. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello
Carchasm, I saw that you added the tag "unfocused" to the article with the explanation all of the "welfarism is about X, but sometime it's about y" either is wrong or this article should be split
. I think we can exclude the first option ("either is wrong"): Welfarism is sometimes discussed as a theory of morality in general (Keller 2009). But it is most influential as a theory strictly of value (or the good) simpliciter
(Bramble 2021, first page). This leaves the second option: should the article be split? If the two senses were very different (like mouse as an
animal vs as an
input device), I would agree. However, the two senses here are very similar. Many of the arguments for and against welfarism apply to both and various theorists don't even explicitly distinguish between the two. This problem does not just pertain to welfarism: for many philosophical concepts and theories, different theorists use different definitions that are nonetheless covered by one Wikipedia article. For this reason, I think
WP:BROADCONCEPT is more applicable here than
WP:CONTENTSPLIT. What are your thoughts, should the article discuss the distinction between the two somehow differently? Any other thoughts on how it may be improved?
Phlsph7 (
talk)
09:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)