Analysis 60 (3):288–293 (2000)
|Abstract||In "What We Owe to Each Other", T. M. <span class='Hi'>Scanlon</span> argues that one should save the greater number when faced with the choice between saving one life and two or more different lives. It is, <span class='Hi'>Scanlon</span> claims, a virtue of this argument (which is traceable to Frances Kamm) that it does not appeal to the claims of groups of individuals but only to the claims of individuals. I demonstrate that this argument for saving the greater number, indeed, depends, contrary to what <span class='Hi'>Scanlon</span> says, upon an appeal to the claim of a group of individuals to be saved.|
|Keywords||Choice Consequentialism Ethics Scanlon T Taurek J|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
P. X. Monaghan (2010). A Novel Interpretation of Plato's Theory of Forms. Metaphysica 11 (1):63-78.
H. E. Baber (1987). How Bad Is Rape? Hypatia 2 (2):125 - 138.
Robert Shaver (2007). Contractualism and Restrictions. Philosophical Studies 132 (2):293 - 299.
J. L. Schellenberg (2005). The Hiddenness Argument Revisited (II). Religious Studies 41 (3):287 - 303.
Tyler Doggett (2009). What Is Wrong With Kamm's and Scanlon's Arguments Against Taurek. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 3 (3).
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads40 ( #28,872 of 549,090 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,722 of 549,090 )
How can I increase my downloads?