Utilitas 20 (4):447 (2008)
In recent years, many nonconsequentialists such as Frances Kamm and Thomas Scanlon have been puzzling over what has come to be known as the Number Problem, which is how to show that the greater number in a rescue situation should be saved without aggregating the claims of the many, a typical kind of consequentialist move that seems to violate the separateness of persons. In this paper, I argue that these nonconsequentialists may be making the task more difficult than necessary, because allowing aggregation does not prevent one from being a nonconsequentialist. I shall explain how a nonconsequentialist can still respect the separateness of persons while allowing for aggregation
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Playing Dice with Morality: Weighted Lotteries and the Number Problem.Mathieu Doucet - 2013 - Utilitas 25 (2):161-181.
Don’T Count on Taurek: Vindicating the Case for the Numbers Counting.Yishai Cohen - 2014 - Res Publica 20 (3):245-261.
Mixed Feelings About Mixed Solutions.Jan Gertken - 2016 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19 (1):59-69.
Similar books and articles
Egalitarianism and the Separateness of Persons.Alex Voorhoeve & Marc Fleurbaey - 2012 - Utilitas 24 (3):381-398.
What Are Numbers?Zvonimir Šikić - 1996 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 10 (2):159-171.
The Separateness of Persons and Liberal Theory.Matt Zwolinski - 2008 - Journal of Value Inquiry 42 (2):147-165.
Why the Numbers Should Sometimes Count.John T. Sanders - 1988 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 17 (1):3-14.
Rights, Duties and the Separateness of Persons.Timothy Hinton - 2009 - Philosophical Papers 38 (1):73-91.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads116 ( #41,880 of 2,164,576 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #33,332 of 2,164,576 )
How can I increase my downloads?