See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/362269607

BERNARD WILLIAMS’ CRITIQUE OF UTILITARIANISM- PROCEEDINGS BOOK

Conference Paper · October 2021

CITATIONS READS

0 1,472

1 author:

Umut Dağ
Mus Alparslan University
11 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Umut Dağ on 26 July 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

III. INTERNATIONAL ETHICS CONGRESS
OCTOBER 10-12, 2021 ANKARA, TURKEY

PROCEEDINGS BOOK

EDITORS
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Melike ÖZER KESKIN
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hasan ÇIFTÇI

ISBN: 978-625-7464-36-9
III. INTERNATIONAL ETHICS CONGRESS
OCTOBER 10-12, 2021 ANKARA, TURKEY

PROCEEDINGS BOOK

EDITORS
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Melike ÖZER KESKIN
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hasan ÇIFTÇI

All rights of this book belong to

Farabi Publishing House
Without permission can’t be duplicate or copied.
Authors of chapters are responsible both ethically and juridically.
www.izdas.org

Issued: 30.10.2021
ISBN: 978-625-7464-36-9
 CONGRESS ID
III. INTERNATIONAL ETHICS CONGRESS

DATA AND PLACE

October 10-12, 2021 Ankara, TURKEY
(ZOOM APPLICATION)

ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Prof. Dr. Salih ÖZTÜRK
Namık Kemal University
Prof. Dr. Fahri APAYDIN
President of the ‘Akademide Etik Derneği’
Yalova University
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Melike ÖZER KESKİN
Gazi University
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hasan ÇİFTÇİ
Harran University
Dr. Malik YILMAZ
Atatürk University
Dr. Minji YANG
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
Elvan CAFEROV
Azerbaijan State Pedagogy University

COORDINATOR
Gulnaz GAFUROVA

PRESENTATION TYPE
Oral Presentation

NUMBER OF ACCEPTED PAPERS FROM TURKEY

30

OTHER COUNTRIES
35

PARTICIPANT COUNTRIES
Turkey, Philippines, India, Pakistan, Iran, Indonesia, South Africa, Nigeria, Malaysia,
Israel, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Albania, Ukraine, Romania, Uzbekistan, Russia, Italy,
Serbia, USA, Sri Lanka

EVALUATION PROCESS
All applications have undergone a double-blind peer review process
 SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE

Prof. Dr. Fahri APAYDIN, Yalova University

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Melike ÖZER KESKİN, Gazi University
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hasan ÇİFTÇİ, Harran University
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Fahri ÖZSUNGUR, Adana Science and Technology University
Assist. Prof. Dr. Murat Buğra TAHTALI, İnönü University
Assist. Prof. Dr. H. Vedat AKMAN, Beykent University
Dr. M. Ali KİRMAN, Cukurova University
Dr. Nesrin ÇOBANOĞLU, Gazi University
Dr. Yaşar Bilge, Ankara University
Dr. Çağatay ÜSTÜN, Ege University
Dr. Nilay KESKİN SAMANCI, Necmettin Erbakan University
Dr. İbrahim Halil KILIÇ, Gaziantep University
Dr. Ülkü HALATÇI ULUSOY, Ankara University
Dr. Salih ÖZTÜRK, Namık Kemal University
Dr. Ümran TÜRKYILMAZ, Ankara Haci Bayram Veli University
Dr. İradə ZƏRQAN, AMEA Institute of Philosophy
Dr. Ana Leonor SANTOS, Beira-Interior University
Dr. Almaz AHMETOV, Azerbaycan Ministry of Health
Dr. Terane NAĞIYEVA, Azerbaijan State Pedagogy University
Dr. Hazim Abed Mohammed AL-JEWAREE-AlKitab University
Dr. Sandugash TLEUBAY, Abai Kazakh National Pedagogical University
Dr. Ercan YAŞAR, Erzincan Binali Yıldırım University
Dr. Armağan ÖZTÜRK, Artvin Coruh University
Dr. Dilek ULUSAL, Kırıkkale University
Dr. Banu ERŞANLI TAŞ, Başkent University
Dr. Hasan ERBAY, Afyon University
Dr. Mehmet Emin KALGI, Cukurova University
 3rd INTERNATIONAL ETHICS CONGRESS
October 10-12, 2021
BERNARD WILLIAMS’ CRITIQUE OF UTILITARIANISM

Umut DAĞ
Araştırma Görevlisi, Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Felsefe Bölümü
ORCID NO: 0000-0002-2576-2146

ABSTRACT
Utilitarianism is one of the well-known and influential ethical theories in the history of
philosophy, just as virtue ethic theory and deontological theory. The power of this theory has
not just shown itself in the ethical realm, but also in the political realm. This view was first
held by the great philosopher and political reformer, Jeremy Bentham, in the 18th century.
John Stuart Mill, who was the student of Bentham and a philosopher, developed this theory.
This ethical theory is a normative theory. Because of its normative character, utilitarianism is
a form of guidance for both ethical and political problems. The normative aspect of the
utilitarian ethical theory, as a moral principle, is to seek the greatest happiness for the greatest
number of people. This is also known as the utility principle. This definition belongs to
Bentham and has also been defended in the utilitarian tradition. A normative ethical theory
gives us a definition of good and bad. For utilitarian ethics, good is generally defined by
means of happiness. Happiness is understood as attaining pleasure and avoiding pain. This is
the classical utilitarian view on happiness. This theory is aim oriented. For this reason,
utilitarianism is defined as teleological theory. In this study, the critique of Bernard Williams
on utilitarianism is analyzed. Before the critique of utilitarianism, Williams starts from a
fundamental thought about this ethical theory. He basically inquires what makes utilitarian
ethics so attractive for moral thought. By means of this inquiry, Williams identifies both the
strong and weak aspects of utilitarianism as moral and political theory.
Key Words: Happiness, Utility, Good, Ethics, Normative Theory

ÖZET
Faydacılık, felsefe tarihinde tıpkı erdem etiği teorisi ve deontolojik etik gibi, en iyi bilinen ve
kabul gören etik teorilerden biridir. Bu teorinin gücü kendisini sadece etik alanda değil aynı
zamanda politik alanda da göstermiştir. Bu görüş ilk olarak 18. Yüzyılda Jeremy Bentahm
tarafından savunulmuştur. Bentham’ın öğrencisi ve filozof olan John Stuart Mill bu teoriyi
geliştirdi. Bu etik teori normatif bir teoridir. Normatif karaketerinden dolayı, Faydacılık hem
etik hem de politik problemlere için bir başvuru kaynağıdır. Faydacı etik normatif yönüyle,
bir ahlaki ilke olarak, “çok sayıda insan için çok sayıda mutluluğu ara”. Bu aynı zamanda
fayda ilkesi olarak bilinir. Bu tanım Bentham’a aittir ve daha sonra faydacı gelenek tarafından
savunulagelmiştir. Normatif bir etik teroi bize iyi ve kötünün tanımını verir. Faydacı etik için
iyi mutluluk aracılığıyla tanımlanır. Mutluluk ise hazza erişmek ve acıdan kaçınmaktır. Bu
klasik faydacılığın mutluluk hakkındaki görüşüdür. Bu teori amaç yönelimli teoridir. Bu
sebepten faydacı etik teori teleolojik teori olarak tanımlanır. Bu çalışmada biz Bernard
Williams’ın faydacılık üzerine olan eleştirilerini analiz edeceğiz. Eleştiriden evvel, Williams
bu etik teori hakkında temel bir düşünceyle başlangıç yapar. O en temelde faydacı etiği ahlaki
düşünce için bu kadar çekici kılanın ne olduğunu soruşturur. Bu soruşturma aracılığıyla,
Williams etik ve politik bir teori olarak faydacılığın güçlü ve zayıf yanlarını belirler.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Mutluluk, Fayda, İyi, Etik, Normatif Teori

www.izdas.org Ankara, TURKEY

287
 3rd INTERNATIONAL ETHICS CONGRESS
October 10-12, 2021
I. INTRODUCTION
The topic of this study is about ethics in general. From Aristotle, we know that ethics is a
practical science. Aristotle divided science into three parts: theoretical, practical, and
productive sciences. Theoretical sciences investigate knowledge for its own sake. These
sciences are metaphysics, physics, mathematics, and natural sciences. Practical sciences
investigate the guidance of action in terms of goodness for both the individual and society.
These sciences are ethics and politics. Productive sciences investigate the arts. These sciences
are rhetoric, theatre, ship-building, medicine, and dance. Since ethics is a practical science, all
ethical theories are about what makes an action good or bad for both the individual and
society (Shields, 2020). In this study, utilitarianism, which is the one of the main ethical
theories in moral thought, is analyzed. In doing so, the main subject will be Bernard
Williams’ critique of utilitarianism as ethical and political theory. Before analyzing Williams’
critique, an attempt is made to explain the main ideas of utilitarian ethics and politics. In order
to explain the main ideas of utilitarian ethics, two great philosophers of utilitarian thought will
be used. These philosophers are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. They are known as
classical utilitarian philosophers. They are very important in utilitarian ethics and politics
because Bentham put forwarded and founded utilitarianism and Mill developed Bentham’s
ideas and added a new perspective on ethical and political problems from the point view of
utilitarianism. After explaining utilitarianism from these philosopher’s views, it will be
attempted to explain and analyze Williams’ critique of utilitarianism. Bernard Williams’ basic
aim is to get the core ideas of utilitarianism as ethical and political theory. For this reason, he
does not analyze the utilitarian traditions and philosophers who contribute this ethical theory.
Because these two philosophers mentioned above founded and determined the main
characteristics of utilitarian ethics, Williams especially makes his critique from the point view
of these two philosophers on utilitarianism.
II. CLASSICAL UTILITARIANISM, JEREMY BENTHAM, AND JOHN
STUART MILL
Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) was born in London and had a wealthy family. He was the son
of an attorney. He learned Latin and Greek at an early age, and went to Queen’s College in
Oxford in 1760, where he later obtained a law degree. After graduation, his interest grew in
politics and law. He later became well known for designing a prison system known as
Panopticon. As a result of his interest in politics and law, he wrote a number of books on
ethics and politics, the most well-known of which comprised “An Introduction to The
Principles of Morals and Legislation, A Fragment on Government, The Rationale of
Punishment and The Theory of Legislation”. He put forwarded and explained his ethical
theory as utilitarianism in his book “An Introduction to The Principles of Morals and
Legislation”. Herein, this book will be used in an attempt to explain his ethical ideas. As
mentioned above, utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory. A normative ethical theory
provides a standard and principle that defines and determines what good and bad is in terms
of moral actions. The normative aspect of utilitarian theory defines and determines moral
actions for both the individual and society. This feature of utilitarian ethics makes this theory
a form of guidance, not only for ethics, but also for politics. The normative character of
utilitarianism is a utility principle. This principle was put forwarded by Jeremy Bentham.
Before introducing and defining the utility principle, Bentham made a generalization about
human nature. This generalization constitutes the content of the utility principle. According to
him, two main powers govern human actions, pleasure and pain. By means of these powers,
human beings decide what they ought to do. From this consideration, he claimed that the
rightness and wrongness of our actions is determined by these powers (Bentham, 2000:15).
Keeping this in mind, we can move on the utility principle now. The aim of Bentham in

www.izdas.org Ankara, TURKEY

288
 3rd INTERNATIONAL ETHICS CONGRESS
October 10-12, 2021
giving the utility principle was not only proposing an ethical principle, but also using this
principle in the political realm. He defines the utility principle as follows:
“By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves
of every action whatsoever. according to the tendency it appears to have to
augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or,
what is the same thing in other words, to promote or to oppose that happiness. I
say of every action whatsoever, and therefore not only of every action of a private
individual, but of every measure of government” (Bentham, 2000: 14).
From the above quote, Bentham clearly defines the utility principle in terms of happiness. He
uses the utility principle to decide which actions are approvable and disprovable for both the
individual and society. This principle should be used by government as well. The content of
the utility principle is determined by the concept of happiness. In order to understand
Bentham’s utility principle, we should explain how Bentham defines happiness, because
happiness means different things in terms of what is understood from this concept and how it
is defined. Bentham defines happiness in terms of pleasure and pain. Actions that increase
pleasure and diminish pain produce happiness. Bentham uses utility by means of this
perspective. He also uses the advantage, benefit, pleasure, and good when he defines utility,
but the main idea of utility is defined by him in terms of happiness. Happiness includes all of
the other concepts mentioned above for Bentham (Bentham, 2000: 15). According to
Bentham, increasing pleasure and avoiding pain should be the aim of any government for the
interest of society (Bentham, 2000: 31). For this reason, contemporary philosopher Will
Kymlicka defines Bentham’s utility definition as “welfare hedonism”, which means that the
main aim of any action is pleasure. Pleasure is the end in itself and good is the only as means
of pleasure (Kymlicka, 2002: 13). This welfare hedonism is related to both the individual and
society. From this consideration, the utility principle is characterized by Bentham in another
way as follows:
“An action then may be said to be conformable to then principle of utility, or, for
shortness sake, to utility, (meaning with respect to the community at large) when
the tendency it has to augment the happiness of the community is greater than any
it has to diminish it” (Bentham, 2000: 15).
This characterization of the utility principle emphasizes the maximizing happiness for the
community. From this perspective, the main aim of government is to choose any action or
policy with regard to whether this action and policy increases the happiness or reduces it for
the community, for Bentham. He, as a political reformer and philosopher, advised that this
principle be used for government (Bentham, 2000: 15). How we know what kind of actions
produce pleasure and avoid pain, and how we determine this is an important problem in
Bentham’s view. He proposes a scientific method for this problem that comprises a
measurement of pleasure and pain as methods. He claims that:
“Pain and pleasure are produced in men’s minds by the action of certain causes.
But the quantity of pleasure and pain runs not uniformly in proportion to the
cause; in other words, to the quantity of force exerted by such cause. The truth of
this observation rests not upon any metaphysical nicety in the import given to the
terms cause, quantity, and force: it will be equally true in whatsoever manner such
force be measured” (Bentham, 2000: 42).
From the above quote, Bentham proposes a quantifying method for determining what kind of
action is good for the individual and society. This proposal is highly problematic. This will be
discussed in the second part of this study, when the critique by Williams on utilitarian ethics
and politics is examined. Apart from Bentham, John Stuart Mill is another important classical

www.izdas.org Ankara, TURKEY

289
 3rd INTERNATIONAL ETHICS CONGRESS
October 10-12, 2021
utilitarian philosopher. His ideas on ethics and politics will be dealt with in the next part of
this section.
John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), a great British philosopher and economist, was also born in
London. He worked as a parliament member in Britain as well. He wrote many books about
different subjects, such as the economy, politics, logic, and philosophy. His ideas on
utilitarianism will be explained by reference to “Utilitarianism”, which is his main work on
ethics. In this book, he develops Bentham’s utilitarian ethics and introduces new ideas on it.
Mill defines the principle of utility just as Bentham, as follows:
“The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest
Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to
promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By
happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and
the privation of pleasure” (Mill, 1966: 157).
In this above definition, happiness is defined as the aim of any right moral action and
attaining happiness is achieved by the existence of pleasure and avoiding pain. This definition
is the important common idea between Bentham and Mill. However, Mill makes a distinction
between higher pleasure and lower pleasure in terms of the quality of it. He makes this
distinction in relation to human beings, as follows:
“Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals,
for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast's pleasures; no intelligent human
being would consent to be a fool, no instructed person would be an ignoramus, no
person of feeling and conscience would be selfish and base, even though they
should be persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better satisfied with
his lot than they are with theirs. They would not resign what they possess more
than he, for the most complete satisfaction of all the desires which they have in
common with him” (Mill, 1966: 160).
From the above quote, Mill makes a distinction between higher and lower pleasure in terms of
quality. The quality of having pleasure by means of eating and drinking, which is the common
pleasure between animals and man, and the quality of having pleasure by means of the
reading of poetry and studying philosophy are not the same qualitatively. The first kind of
pleasure is lower, and the second kind of pleasure is higher in terms of quality. These ideas on
pleasure are the main difference between Bentham and Mill. According to Michael Sandel,
Bentham equalizes lower and higher pleasure in terms of quality. He sees push-pin and poetry
as the same good in terms of the quality of these pleasures. Unlike Bentham, Mill makes a
distinction between lower and higher pleasures. For this reason, he saved utilitarian ethics
from the critique of equalizing pleasures in terms of quality. It is not just a crude quantitative
calculation of pleasures (Sandel, 2010: 52–53). In light of these explanation and analyses,
Williams’ critique of utilitarianism will be explain and analyzed in the following section.
III. BERNARD WILLAMS’ CRITIQUE OF UTILITARIANISM
Utilitarianism is one of the well-known and influential ethical theories in the history of
philosophy, just as virtue ethic theory and deontological theory. The power of this theory has
not just shown itself in the ethical realm, but also in the political realm. This view was first
held by the great philosopher and political reformer, Jeremy Bentham, in the 18th century.
John Stuart Mill, who was the student of Bentham and a philosopher, developed this theory.
This ethical theory is a normative theory. Because of its normative character, utilitarianism is
a form of guidance for both ethical and political problems. The normative aspect of the
utilitarian ethical theory, as a moral principle, is to seek the greatest happiness for the greatest

www.izdas.org Ankara, TURKEY

290
 3rd INTERNATIONAL ETHICS CONGRESS
October 10-12, 2021
number of people. This is also known as the utility principle. This definition belongs to
Bentham and has also been defended in the utilitarian tradition. A normative ethical theory
provides a definition of good and bad. For utilitarian ethics, good is generally defined by
means of happiness. Happiness is understood as attaining pleasure and avoiding pain. This is
the classical utilitarian view on happiness. This theory is aim oriented. For this reason,
utilitarianism is defined as a teleological theory. In this study, the critique by Bernard
Williams on utilitarianism was analyzed. Before the critique of utilitarianism, Williams starts
from a fundamental thought about this ethical theory. He basically inquires what makes
utilitarian ethics so attractive for moral thought. By means of this inquiry, Williams identifies
both the strong and weak aspects of utilitarianism as a moral and political theory. According
to Williams, there are four major features that make utilitarianism attractive for moral
thought: first, this ethical theory is non-transcendental and it is not based on any religious
views. Second, happiness, which is the basic good and aim of utilitarian ethics, makes a show
of minimal problematic because everyone generally wants to be happy in this life. Third,
moral issues for utilitarian ethics are calculable and determinable by empirical facts. This
makes utilitarian ethics scientifically acceptable for social problems. Fourth and finally, all of
the different views on moral issues are corrected by one principle, which is the utility
principle, in terms of happiness. This makes utilitarian ethics a common currency of moral
thought (Williams, 1993: 82–85). Although these four major features of utilitarian ethics are
attractive for moral thought, they are disputable claims for Williams. Thus, an attempt will be
made herein to explain this disputable claim with regard to Williams’ critique of utilitarian
ethics. Williams mainly criticizes these four features of utilitarian ethics argumentatively and
he does not specify any examples. To understand his critique of utilitarianism, we need to
present his arguments using some concrete examples and claims. For this reason, some
examples and claims will be given about these arguments by using some other philosophers’
critiques on utilitarianism.
The first major feature of utilitarian ethics is disputable for Williams. According to him,
although, utilitarian ethics is not justified by any transcendental ground and is not based on
any religious comprehensive view, it demands more radical changes concerning all moral
actions (Williams, 1993: 83). The great contemporary philosopher John Rawls pays attention
this problem in his work, “Political Liberalism”, in which he claims that the in terms of
political conception of justice for the principles of politics that govern and determine
individuals should not be based any comprehensive ethical and metaphysical doctrine. He
uses the utilitarianism as a sample of it as follows:
“In this respect a political conception of justice differs from many moral
doctrines, for these are widely as general and comprehensive views. Utilitarianism
is a familiar example: the principle of utility, however understood, is usually said
to hold for all kinds of subjects ranging from the conduct of individuals and
personal relations to the organization of society as a whole as well as to the law of
peoples” (Rawls, 2005: 13).
The second major feature of utilitarian ethics is also so disputable for Williams. The main aim
of a human being, which is to be happy in this life, is so problematic for Williams. According
to him, people may value some things in this life, such as submission, trust, uncertainty, risk,
even despair, and suffering instead of happiness. He gives an example from Christian ethics.
People who believe Christian ethics believe that spiritual suffering is more valuable than
happiness (Williams, 1993: 76–80).
The third feature of utilitarian ethics is as well so controversial for Williams. The empirical
calculation of moral issues in terms of consequences is highly problematic for Williams. As a
result of this method, every moral issue is determined by technical limitations (Williams,

www.izdas.org Ankara, TURKEY

291
 3rd INTERNATIONAL ETHICS CONGRESS
October 10-12, 2021
1993: 85). To illustrate this claim, David Rose’s critique of utilitarianism from the P. H.
Nowell Smith’ works on ethics can be referred to. According to Rose, people give value to
keeping promises. If a person who believes that keeping a promise is s right moral action
ethically, he does not think of the consequence of it. Because utilitarianism pays attention to
the consequence of moral action by means of the utility principle, it ignores this fact (Smith,
1969: 232).
The fourth feature of utilitarian ethics is disputable for Williams as well. Giving common
currency to moral thought is problematic when there is conflict between two views in terms of
the utility principle (Williams, 1993: 85). The problem arises from in this conflict when
deciding which one of these claims would be right. Since conflict is solved by invoking the
most desirable consequences in terms of the utility principle, for utilitarianism, there is no
tragedy (Williams, 1993: 85–86). For example, if the maximization of happiness in a given
society needs to scarify some basic liberties of individuals, such as liberty of thought and
liberty of conscience, then governments have the right to ban these liberties of individuals
according to the utility principle. These could include closing a religious place or newspapers.
There is no tragedy in this situation for utilitarian ethics because it maximizes happiness for
society in general.
From the above quote, it is clearly shown that banning some basic liberties is not a problem in
terms of justice for utilitarian ethics if this play increases the greatest happiness for the
greatest number of people. Deciding whether this policy is acceptable or not in terms of
utilitarian ethics is based only the consequence of these policies that increases the greatest
happiness for the greatest number of people.
IV. CONCLUSION
In this study, utilitarian ethics was discussed as a moral doctrine and its critique from Bernard
Williams’ point of view was given. As Williams pointed out, there are some features of
utilitarian ethics that make it attractive for moral thought. Although these features of
utilitarian thought are attractive for moral philosophy and discussion for analyzing and
solving moral issues, it also makes this ethical theory problematic in many ways with regard
to moral problems. Williams’ critiques show us how utilitarian ethics and its premises are so
weak and vulnerable when we seriously examine and criticize its main claims. For this reason,
his critique on utilitarianism is powerful and needs to be considered.
References
Bentham, Jeremy. (2000), “An Introduction to The Principles of Morals and Legislation”,
Batoche Books, Canada.
Kmylicka, Will. (2002), “Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction”, Oxford
University Press, New York.
Mill, John Stuart. (1966), “John Stuart Mill, A Selection of His Works”, (Edited by John M.
Robson), Macmillan Publishers Limited, New York.
Rawls, John. (2005), “Political Liberalism”, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Sandel, Michael. (2010), “Justice: What’s Right Thing to Do”, Farrar, Straus and Grioux
Publishing, New York.
Shields, Christopher, "Aristotle", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020
Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL <https://plato.stanford.edu / archives/ fall2020/ entries/
Aristotle/>.
Smith, P. H. Nowell. (1969), “Ethics”, Penguin Books, London.
Williams, Bernard. (1993), “Morality: An Introduction to Ethics”, Cambridge University
Press, New York.

www.izdas.org Ankara, TURKEY

View publication stats 292