Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T21:18:58.684Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Counting People and Making People Count

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 December 2020

Jessica J.T. Fischer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Common-sense morality seems to tell us that a rescuer who can save either one individual or five other individuals from death has a duty to save the greater number. But contractualism, a moral theory on which principles must be justifiable to individuals, seems to imply that it is permissible to save the one. This is because a commitment to individual justification blocks the possibility of appealing to the aggregate amount of lives saved. Does contractualism really have this implication? If so, should we side with the common-sense approach, or is there any reason to side with the contractualist? In this paper, I first examine a new argument from Jay Wallace which claims to reconcile contractualism with a duty to save the greater number. I find the argument to be unsuccessful. I then suggest that common-sense morality doesn't support a duty to save the greater number as straightforwardly as it might initially seem as it might initially seem. I introduce two mundane cases in which the permissibility of saving either the lesser or greater number is intuitively plausible, and I offer some reasons to think that the permissibility of saving the lesser number coheres with our value judgements more generally.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy , Volume 96 , Issue 2 , April 2021 , pp. 229 - 252
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy, 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexander, Larry, ‘Banishing the Bogey of Incommensurability’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 146 (1998), 1641–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anscombe, G.E.M., ‘Who is Wronged?’, The Oxford Review, 5 (1967), 16–17.Google Scholar
Chang, Ruth, ‘Introduction’, in Incommensurability, Incomparability, and Practical Reason, Chang, Ruth (ed.), (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997).Google Scholar
Chang, Ruth, ‘The Possibility of Parity’, Ethics, 112 (2002), 659–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinberg, Joel, ‘Not with my tax money’, in Problems at the Root of Law: Essays in Political and Legal Theory, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frick, Johann, ‘Contractualism and Social Risk’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 43 (2015), 175–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horton, Joe, ‘The All or Nothing Problem’, The Journal of Philosophy, 114 (2016) 94–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsieh, Nien, Strudler, Alan, and Wasserman, David, ‘Pairwise Comparison and Number Skepticism’, Utilitas 19 (2007) 487–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamm, Frances, Morality, Mortality: Death and Whom to Save From It (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, Rahul, ‘Contractualism on Saving the Many’, Analysis, 61 (2001), 165–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahan, Jeff, ‘Doing Good and Doing the Best’, in The Ethics of Giving (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munoz-Dardé, Véronique, ‘The Distribution of Numbers and the Comprehensiveness of Reasons,’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 105 (2005), 207–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otsuka, Michael, ‘Saving Lives, Moral Theory, and the Claims of Individuals’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 34 (2006), 109–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parfit, Derek, ‘Justifiability to Each Person’, Ratio (new series), 16 (2003), 368–90.Google Scholar
Pummer, Theron, ‘Whether and Where to Give’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 44 (2016) 77–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridge, Michael, ‘Contractualism and the New and Improved Redundancy Objection’, Analysis, 63 (2003), 337–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scanlon, T. M., What We Owe to Each Other (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998).Google Scholar
Scanlon, T.M., ‘Contractualism and Justification’, unpublished manuscript, 2017.Google Scholar
Scheffler, Samuel, Why Worry About Future Generations? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Setiya, Kieran, ‘Love and the Value of a Life’, Philosophical Review, 123 (2014), 251–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, Thomas, ‘Are We Conditionally Obligated to be Effective Altruists?’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 46 (2018), 36–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, Thomas, ‘Permissivism about Rescue Dilemmas’, unpublished manuscript, 2020a.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Thomas, ‘Aggregation, Relevance, and Solidarity’, unpublished manuscript, 2020b.Google Scholar
Tadros, Victor, Wrongs and Crimes, (Oxford University Press: New York, 2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taurek, John, ‘Should the Numbers Count?’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 6 (1977) 293–316.Google ScholarPubMed
Voorhoeve, Alex, ‘How Should We Aggregate Competing Claims?’, Ethics, 125 (2014), 64–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voorhoeve, Alex, ‘Healthy Nails versus Long Lives: An Analysis of a Dutch Priority Setting Proposal’ in Eyal, Nir, Hurst, Samia A., Murray, Christopher, Andrew Schroeder, S. & Wikler, Daniel (eds.), Measuring the Global Burden of Disease: Philosophical Dimensions (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020) 273–92.Google Scholar
Wallace, R. Jay, The Moral Nexus (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019).Google Scholar
Williams, Bernard, Problems of the Self (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Bernard, ‘Persons, Character and Morality’, in Moral Luck (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar