Utilitas 20 (04):447- (2008)
|Abstract||In recent years, many nonconsequentialists such as Frances Kamm and Thomas Scanlon have been puzzling over what has come to be known as the Number Problem, which is how to show that the greater number in a rescue situation should be saved without aggregating the claims of the many , a typical kind of consequentialist move that seems to violate the separateness of persons. In this paper, I argue that these nonconsequentialists may be making the task more difficult than necessary, because allowing aggregation does not prevent one from being a nonconsequentialist. I shall explain how a nonconsequentialist can still respect the separateness of persons while allowing for aggregation|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Michael Otsuka (2000). Scanlon and the Claims of the Many Versus the One. Analysis 60 (3):288–293.
Timothy Hinton (2011). Rights, Duties and the Separateness of Persons. Philosophical Papers 38 (1):73-91.
F. M. Kamm (2005). Aggregation and Two Moral Methods. Utilitas 17 (1):1-23.
John T. Sanders (1988). Why the Numbers Should Sometimes Count. Philosophy and Public Affairs 17 (1):3-14.
Matt Zwolinski (2008). The Separateness of Persons and Liberal Theory. Journal of Value Inquiry 42 (2):147-165.
Zvonimir Šikić (1996). What Are Numbers? International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 10 (2):159 – 171.
Zvonimir Šikić (1996). What Are Numbers? International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 10 (2):159-171.
Marc Fleurbaey & Alex Voorhoeve (2012). Egalitarianism and the Separateness of Persons. Utilitas 24:381-398.
Iwao Hirose (2004). Aggregation and Numbers. Utilitas 16 (1):62-79.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads23 ( #60,159 of 722,813 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,813 )
How can I increase my downloads?