On my understanding of welfarism, it's the view that (i) welfare is the only good, and (ii) welfare matters *because* sentient beings (welfare-bearers) matter.
There's two different senses of "mattering" in play here. There's the question of what objects or entities "matter" in the sense of being the proper *focus* of our moral concern. T…
On my understanding of welfarism, it's the view that (i) welfare is the only good, and (ii) welfare matters *because* sentient beings (welfare-bearers) matter.
There's two different senses of "mattering" in play here. There's the question of what objects or entities "matter" in the sense of being the proper *focus* of our moral concern. The answer: sentient beings are the *things* that ultimately matter.
Then there's the question of what *features* or *changes* we should want to see in the world: what is *good*, or worth promoting. This is the sense in which welfare "matters": it's good, or worth promoting. We might add: promoting welfare is desirable precisely because that's what would be good *for* the important entities: the sentient beings (or welfare-bearers) that we should ultimately care about. We promote welfare for the sake of the welfare-bearers.
(Bringing good new lives into existence may be an exception; that's a tricky case. It does turn out to be good for the eventual person. But it's not clear that the initial act can coherently be done for the sake of the resulting individual who doesn't yet exist, and wouldn't exist if one chose otherwise. Maybe the moral reason in that case is more impersonal.)
On my understanding of welfarism, it's the view that (i) welfare is the only good, and (ii) welfare matters *because* sentient beings (welfare-bearers) matter.
There's two different senses of "mattering" in play here. There's the question of what objects or entities "matter" in the sense of being the proper *focus* of our moral concern. The answer: sentient beings are the *things* that ultimately matter.
Then there's the question of what *features* or *changes* we should want to see in the world: what is *good*, or worth promoting. This is the sense in which welfare "matters": it's good, or worth promoting. We might add: promoting welfare is desirable precisely because that's what would be good *for* the important entities: the sentient beings (or welfare-bearers) that we should ultimately care about. We promote welfare for the sake of the welfare-bearers.
(Bringing good new lives into existence may be an exception; that's a tricky case. It does turn out to be good for the eventual person. But it's not clear that the initial act can coherently be done for the sake of the resulting individual who doesn't yet exist, and wouldn't exist if one chose otherwise. Maybe the moral reason in that case is more impersonal.)