<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &#8220;Unsound examinations&#8230;&#8221; series: part two</title>
	<link>http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/222</link>
	<description>Notes from the intersection of law, society, technology, economics, and culture</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:41:05 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: &#8220;Unsound examinations&#8230;&#8221; series: part 4 at Law &#38; Society Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/222#comment-2461</link>
		<author>&#8220;Unsound examinations&#8230;&#8221; series: part 4 at Law &#38; Society Blog</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:05:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/222#comment-2461</guid>
		<description>[...] /// What follows is a piece which presents a series of examinations of utilitarianism from Harwood’s seminal essay, “Eleven Objections to Utilitarianism”, along with my demonstrations of how these objections are unsound. Previous installments address such topics as integrity, justice, promise-keeping, supererogation, average and total utilitarianisms, and rule utilitarianism. As the objections get more and more serious, my replies have grown in length. My apologies. /// [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] /// What follows is a piece which presents a series of examinations of utilitarianism from Harwood’s seminal essay, “Eleven Objections to Utilitarianism”, along with my demonstrations of how these objections are unsound. Previous installments address such topics as integrity, justice, promise-keeping, supererogation, average and total utilitarianisms, and rule utilitarianism. As the objections get more and more serious, my replies have grown in length. My apologies. /// [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
