David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 159 (2):205-218 (2012)
When facing a choice between saving one person and saving many, some people have argued that fairness requires us to decide without aggregating numbers; rather we should decide by coin toss or some form of lottery, or alternatively we should straightforwardly save the greater number but justify this in a non-aggregating contractualist way. This paper expands the debate beyond well-known number cases to previously under-considered probability cases, in which not (only) the numbers of people, but (also) the probabilities of success for saving people vary. It is shown that, in these latter cases, both the coin toss and the lottery lead to what is called an awkward conclusion, which makes probabilities count in a problematic way. Attempts to avoid this conclusion are shown to lead into difficulties as well. Finally, it is shown that while the greater number method cannot be justified on contractualist grounds for probability cases, it may be replaced by another decision method which is so justified. This decision method is extensionally equivalent to maximising expected value and seems to be the least problematic way of dealing with probability cases in a non-aggregating manner.
|Keywords||Aggregation Coin toss Fairness Lottery Number cases Probability cases|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Thomas Scanlon (1998). What We Owe to Each Other. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
John M. Taurek (1977). Should the Numbers Count? Philosophy and Public Affairs 6 (4):293-316.
Jens Timmermann (2004). The Individualist Lottery: How People Count, but Not Their Numbers. Analysis 64 (2):106–112.
Michael Otsuka (2000). Scanlon and the Claims of the Many Versus the One. Analysis 60 (3):288–293.
Rahul Kumar (2001). Contractualism on Saving the Many. Analysis 61 (2):165–170.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Martin Peterson (2009). The Mixed Solution to the Number Problem. Journal of Moral Philosophy 6 (2):166-177.
Rob Lawlor (2006). Taurek, Numbers and Probabilities. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 9 (2):149 - 166.
Gerald Lang (2005). Fairness in Life and Death Cases. Erkenntnis 62 (3):321 - 351.
Véronique Munoz-Dardé (2005). The Distribution of Numbers and the Comprehensiveness of Reasons. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 105 (2):207–233.
Keith Lehrer (1983). Rationality as Weighted Averaging. Synthese 57 (3):283 - 295.
Veronique Munoz-Darde (2005). The Distribution of Numbers and the Comprehensiveness of Reason. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 105 (2):207-233.
Henry E. Kyburg (1992). Getting Fancy with Probability. Synthese 90 (2):189-203.
Henry E. Kyburg Jr (1992). Getting Fancy with Probability. Synthese 90 (2):189 - 203.
Ben Saunders (2009). A Defence of Weighted Lotteries in Life Saving Cases. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 12 (3):279 - 290.
Iwao Hirose (2004). Aggregation and Numbers. Utilitas 16 (1):62-79.
Joachim Hornung (1980). Carnap's Inductive Probabilities as a Contribution to Decision Theory. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 1 (3):325-367.
F. M. Kamm (2005). Aggregation and Two Moral Methods. Utilitas 17 (1):1-23.
Sven Ove Hansson (2010). Past Probabilities. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 51 (2):207-223.
Added to index2011-01-17
Total downloads42 ( #86,037 of 1,778,413 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #141,940 of 1,778,413 )
How can I increase my downloads?