Graduate studies at Western
Utilitas 17 (1):1-23 (2005)
|Abstract||I begin by reconsidering the arguments of John Taurek and Elizabeth Anscombe on whether the number of people we can help counts morally. I then consider arguments that numbers should count given by F. M. Kamm and Thomas Scanlon, and criticism of them by Michael Otsuka. I examine how different conceptions of the moral method known as pairwise comparison are at work in these different arguments and what the ideas of balancing and tie-breaking signify for decision-making in various types of cases. I conclude by considering how another moral method that I call virtual divisibility functions and what it helps reveal about an argument by Otsuka against those who do not think numbers count.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Barbara H. Fried (2012). Can Contractualism Save Us From Aggregation? Journal of Ethics 16 (1):39-66.
Rowan Cruft (2010). Kamm and Miller on Rights' Compatibility. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13 (4):393 - 401.
Norbert Steinkamp & Bert Gordijn (2003). Ethical Case Deliberation on the Ward. A Comparison of Four Methods. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 6 (3):235-246.
Rob Lawlor (2006). Taurek, Numbers and Probabilities. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 9 (2):149 - 166.
Samantha Brennan (2006). Moral Lumps. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 9 (3):249 - 263.
S. Matthew Liao (2008). Who Is Afraid of Numbers? Utilitas 20 (04):447-.
Tyler Doggett (2009). What Is Wrong With Kamm's and Scanlon's Arguments Against Taurek. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 3 (3).
Iwao Hirose (2004). Aggregation and Numbers. Utilitas 16 (1):62-79.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads94 ( #8,920 of 739,406 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #20,615 of 739,406 )
How can I increase my downloads?