A defence of weighted lotteries in life saving cases

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 12 (3):279 - 290 (2009)
Abstract
The three most common responses to Taurek’s ‘numbers problem’ are saving the greater number, equal chance lotteries and weighted lotteries. Weighted lotteries have perhaps received the least support, having been criticized by Scanlon What We Owe to Each Other ( 1998 ) and Hirose ‘Fairness in Life and Death Cases’ ( 2007 ). This article considers these objections in turn, and argues that they do not succeed in refuting the fairness of a weighted lottery, which remains a potential solution to cases of conflict. Moreover, it shows how these responses actually lead to a new argument for weighted lotteries, appealing to fairness and Pareto-optimality.
Keywords Aggregation  Fairness  Lotteries  Scanlon  Taurek  Weighted lotteries
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 9,357
External links
  • Through your library Configure
    References found in this work BETA
    John Broome (1990). Fairness. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 91:87 - 101.
    John Broome (1998). Kamm on Fairness. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58 (4):955-961.

    View all 20 references

    Citations of this work BETA
    Similar books and articles
    Analytics

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index

    2009-02-28

    Total downloads

    49 ( #27,933 of 1,088,424 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    4 ( #24,197 of 1,088,424 )

    How can I increase my downloads?

    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature


    Discussion
    Start a new thread
    Order:
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.