English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In this article I plead for utilitarianism as guideline for the editor. The article consists mostly of rebuttals of a number of traditional objections against utilitarianism. In particular (but not exclusively) the following objections are discussed: 1.It is impossible to predict the consequences of legislative measures. 2.Legislation should be evaluated procedurally (democratically), rather than by a substantive standard. 3.Utilitarianism allows the sacrifice of the interests or even rights of some on behalf of those of others. 4.Utilitarianism leads to results that are sometimes strongly counterintuitive. A substantial part of the article consists of a discussion of coherentism as method for, amongst others, normative reasoning

Recht en Utilisme Een pleidooi voor het utilisme als richtlijn voor de wetgever