Benefit versus numbers versus helping the worst-off: An alternative to the prevalent approach to the just distribution of resources

Utilitas 20 (3):356-382 (2008)
A central strand in philosophical debate over the just distribution of resources attempts to juggle three competing imperatives: helping those who are worst off, helping those who will benefit the most, and then determining when to aggregate such and claims, and when instead to treat no such claim as greater than that which any individual by herself can exert. Yet as various philosophers have observed, as to how to weigh each of the three imperatives against one another, we find it , and we do not yet have a . In what follows, I offer an approach to weighing the three criteria against one another that yields resolutions saving one infant's life versus replacing ten elderly people's hips that are cardinally definitive, intuitively satisfactory and theoretically justified
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S0953820808003208
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,803
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Hierarchical Consequentialism.Re'em Segev - 2010 - Utilitas 22 (3):309-330.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Added to PP index

Total downloads
53 ( #102,538 of 2,202,777 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #301,722 of 2,202,777 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature