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||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Sylvia Wenmackers & Leon Horsten (2013). Fair Infinite Lotteries. Synthese 190 (1):37-61.
Matthew A. Smith, Religion and the Freedom-Weighted View: Reconsidering First Amendment Challenges to Laws Promoting Autonomy.
Sopher & Narramore (2000). Stochastic Choice and Consistency in Decision Making Under Risk: An Experimental Study. Theory and Decision 48 (4):323-349.
Katharina Rasmussen (2012). Should the Probabilities Count? Philosophical Studies 159 (2):205-218.
Keith Lehrer (1983). Rationality as Weighted Averaging. Synthese 57 (3):283 - 295.
Martin Peterson (2009). The Mixed Solution to the Number Problem. Journal of Moral Philosophy 6 (2):166-177.
Verna V. Gehring (1999). The American State Lottery. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 13 (2):223-238.
Ben Saunders (2010). Fairness Between Competing Claims. Res Publica 16 (1):41-55.
Gerald Lang (2005). Fairness in Life and Death Cases. Erkenntnis 62 (3):321 - 351.
Iwao Hirose (2007). Weighted Lotteries in Life and Death Cases. Ratio 20 (1):45–56.
Added to index2009-02-28
Total downloads43 ( #26,127 of 549,014 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,706 of 549,014 )
How can I increase my downloads?