% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Rther:1034971,
      author       = {Rüther, Markus},
      title        = {{E}xpectable {O}utcome {D}eontology – {A} {N}ew {T}heory
                      of {L}ife’s {M}eaning},
      journal      = {The journal of value inquiry},
      volume       = {.},
      issn         = {0022-5363},
      publisher    = {Springer},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2025-00079},
      pages        = {.},
      year         = {2024},
      abstract     = {The question of what constitutes a meaningful life has
                      recently regained attentionafter being largely neglected in
                      the 20th century. A new debate in ethics, knownas the debate
                      on meaning in life, has emerged around this question. In
                      this article,I propose a new normative theory of
                      meaningfulness, which I label as ExpectableOutcome
                      Deontology (EOD), to contribute to this debate. EOD is an
                      axiologicaltheory that evaluates lives based on the idea
                      that a person’s life is meaningful to theextent that they
                      perform intrinsically meaningful actions. An intrinsically
                      meaning-ful action, moreover, is an action that possess
                      meaningfulness – as it is sometimesput – “in
                      itself”, “for its own sake” or “in its own
                      right”.1 While the theory is deon-tological at its core, I
                      contend that intrinsically meaningful actions are those
                      thatmost likely bring about specific outcomes, typically
                      those that promote the good, thetrue, and the beautiful.
                      Thus, although the theory is not driven or motivated by
                      con-sequentialist considerations, it very much accomodates
                      such demands too. I arguethat EOD is, with suitable
                      clarifications, the correct theory of meaningfulness.To
                      support the argument for EOD, I proceed in four steps.
                      First, I clarify the cen-tral terms and premises I adopt in
                      EOD. Second, I explain how the theory fits intothe ongoing
                      debate on meaningfulness and what makes it promising
                      compared toother theories. Thirdly, I present the key
                      components of the theory that address thechallenges
                      encountered by some traditional theories. Finally, I respond
                      to severalnovel objections, thereby bolstering the rationale
                      of EOD.},
      cin          = {INM-7},
      ddc          = {340},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-7-20090406},
      pnm          = {5255 - Neuroethics and Ethics of Information (POF4-525)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5255},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:001328508600001},
      doi          = {10.1007/s10790-024-10006-9},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1034971},
}