arbiter
JournalsAccount

Welfarism and continuity in ethical theory: a formal comparison of prospect utilitarianism vs. sufficientarianism

Susumu Cato & Hun Chung

Economics and Philosophy2025https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266267125100485article
AJG 2ABDC A
Weight
0.37

Abstract

This paper offers a formal analysis of continuity, welfarism, value satiability, lifeboat cases, along with their interconnectedness with sufficientarianism, with particular attention to the recent defences of sufficientarianism by Ben Davies and Lasse Nielsen in response to Hun Chung’s Prospect Utilitarianism (PU). It demonstrates how precise formal definitions help resolve conceptual ambiguities and sharpen philosophical argumentation in distributive ethics. Without such precision, one risks misidentifying or mischaracterizing important normative concepts and theories, leading to confusion or strawman critiques. By highlighting these risks, the paper underscores the methodological importance of precise definitions and formal analysis in ensuring clarity, consistency, and rigor in ethical theorizing.

1 citation

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266267125100485

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{susumu2025,
  title        = {{Welfarism and continuity in ethical theory: a formal comparison of prospect utilitarianism vs. sufficientarianism}},
  author       = {Susumu Cato & Hun Chung},
  journal      = {Economics and Philosophy},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266267125100485},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Welfarism and continuity in ethical theory: a formal comparison of prospect utilitarianism vs. sufficientarianism

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.37

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.16 × 0.4 = 0.06
M · momentum0.53 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.