David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (5):661-676 (2012)
Taurek cases focus a choice between two views of permissible action, Can Save One and Must Save Many . It is argued that Taurek cases do illustrate the rationale for Can Save One , but existing views do not highlight the fact that this is because they are examples of claims grounded on non-comparative justice. To act to save the many solely because they form a group is to discriminate against the one for an irrelevant reason. That is a canonical form of non-comparative injustice. The error lies in taking a contingency of some presentations of some Taurek cases, namely, that they involve distribution, to introduce the claims of comparative as opposed to non-comparative justice. But cases of non-comparative justice can, contingently, also involve distribution. In order to settle which form of justice applies it is necessary to examine the nature of the distribution involved and the nature of “classes” to which individuals can be assigned
|Keywords||Taurek Numbers scepticism Particularism|
|Categories||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
Jonathan Dancy (2004). Ethics Without Principles. Oxford University Press.
Robert Nozick (1974). Anarchy, State and Utopia. Basic Books.
Thomas Scanlon (1998). What We Owe to Each Other. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Elizabeth S. Anderson (1999). What is the Point of Equality? Ethics 109 (2):287-337.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Gerald Lang (2005). Fairness in Life and Death Cases. Erkenntnis 62 (3):321 - 351.
Rob Lawlor (2006). Taurek, Numbers and Probabilities. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 9 (2):149 - 166.
Pablo Gilabert (2012). Comparative Assessments of Justice, Political Feasibility, and Ideal Theory. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (1):39-56.
David Alm (2011). Equality and Comparative Justice. Inquiry 53 (4):309-325.
Tyler Doggett (2009). What Is Wrong With Kamm's and Scanlon's Arguments Against Taurek. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 3 (3).
Erin M. Cline (2007). Two Senses of Justice: Confucianism, Rawls, and Comparative Political Philosophy. Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 6 (4):361-381.
John Zeis (2010). Response to Anderson. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 84 (3):619-624.
Tyler Doggett (2013). Saving the Few. Noûs 47 (2):302-315.
Richard Norman (2001). Criteria of Justice: Desert, Needs and Equality. [REVIEW] Res Publica 7 (2):115-136.
Phillip Montague (1980). Comparative and Non-Comparative Justice. Philosophical Quarterly 30 (119):131-140.
Erin M. Cline (2013). Confucius, Rawls, and the Sense of Justice. Fordham University Press.
Added to index2012-03-29
Total downloads59 ( #76,105 of 1,934,535 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #195,826 of 1,934,535 )
How can I increase my downloads?