Aggregation and numbers
Utilitas 16 (1):62-79 (2004)
| Abstract | This article considers the reach of arguments for saving the greater number without interpersonal aggregation, and argues that interpersonal aggregation is useful to encompass the proper respect due to each separate person. I first give a precise definition of interpersonal aggregation, which many non-utilitarians try to avoid. Then, I show that consequentialism and Scanlon can justify the case for the greater number without interpersonal aggregation. However, I propose the Aggregation Approach, which justifies the case for the greater number in some cases and the case for tossing a fair coin in other cases. I conclude that interpersonal aggregation does not disrespect the separate person. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesFranz Dietrich Christian List, The Aggregation of Propositional Attitudes: Towards a General Theory.
Frederik Herzberg & Daniel Eckert (2012). Impossibility Results for Infinite-Electorate Abstract Aggregation Rules. Journal of Philosophical Logic 41 (1):273-286.
Franz Dietrich & Philippe Mongin (2010). The Premiss-Based Approach to Judgment Aggregation. Journal of Economic Theory 145 (2):562-582.
Barbara H. Fried (2012). Can Contractualism Save Us From Aggregation? Journal of Ethics 16 (1):39-66.
S. Matthew Liao (2008). Who Is Afraid of Numbers? Utilitas 20 (04):447-.
Christian List (2012). The Theory of Judgment Aggregation: An Introductory Review. Synthese 187 (1):179-207.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads62 ( #15,152 of 549,198 )Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #19,303 of 549,198 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
