• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• no.93
• /
• pp.175-199
• /
• 2011

The development of contemporary utilitarianism can be taken to be an aggregation of many attempts to surmount the limitations of classical utilitarianism. In these attempts, contemporary utilitarianism suggests alternatives to 'hedonism' and 'act-utilitarianism' which have been regarded as the common essential elements of classical utilitarianism. First, contemporary utilitarianism replaces the concept of 'happiness' or 'pleasure' in the classical utilitarianism with that of 'desire-fulfillment' or 'preference-satisfaction'. Through this replacement, contemporary utilitarianism tries to avoid the skeptical challenge to the mental state theory inherent in the classical concept of utility, and also to provide a more extensive conception of utility for a more satisfactory explanation of human welfare. Second, the development of rule-utilitarian theories which can evade the criticisms about 'counter-productivity' and 'counter-intuitiveness' of act-utilitarianism constitutes another important trend of contemporary utilitarianism. Characteristically, rule-utilitarian theories developed in the contemporary utilitarianism grope for some utilitarian system that can embrace socially accepted general norms. Lastly, contemporary utilitarianism responds to the criticisms related the problem of justice by reinterpreting the first principle of utilitarianism. This reinterpretation is an attempt to explain the egalitarian basis of utilitarianism through Bentham's dictum 'everyone counts for one, none for more than one'. It seems true that many influential criticisms in the latter half of 20th century cast a deep shadow on utilitarianism. But through the above attempt, contemporary utilitarianism proceeds to a better explanation of human welfare.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.1-17
• /
• 2013

This paper aims to review the fairness of carriers' incentive schemes at Gwangyang port in 2010 and to show the desirable incentive allocation rules using the proportional and egalitarian rules under cooperative game theory. The carriers' incentive schemes at Gwangyang port in 2010 did not meet the no-envy and the efficiency, and satisfy the symmetry axiom. According to the research findings, the equal surplus method satisfies the axioms of equity, efficiency, symmetry, and progressivity. However, the uniform losses method meets the axioms of equity, efficiency, symmetry, and regressivity. We use a single allocation criterion of the total throughput to show the regressivity and the symmetry principles into the incentive scheme instead of using multiple criteria such as total throughput, increased volume, and coastal volume. The uniform losses method based on the total throughput can distribute the incentive amount according to the intent of the incentive schemes. Hence, we need to establish a rationing system to allocate reasonably the total amount of different types of incentives, avoiding the temptation to adjust the volume shipped between the ports of carriers considering the efficiency of allocation.