This article addresses Taruek’s much discussed Number Problem from a non-consequentialist point of view. I argue that some versions of the Number Problem have no solution, meaning that no alternative is at least as choice-worthy as the others, and that the best way to behave in light of such moral indeterminacy is to let chance make the decision. I contrast my proposal with F M Kamm’s nonconsequentialist argument for saving the greatest number, the Argument for Best Outcomes, which I argue does not follow from the premises it is based on
Number theory, sometimes described as the purest of all sciences, is often perceived as little more ...
In Part Four of Reasons and Persons, Derek Parfit seeks Theory X--the Utilitarian account of the mor...
Many authors in ethics, economics, and political science endorse the Lottery Requirement, that is, t...
This article addresses Taruek’s much discussed Number Problem from a non-consequentialist point of v...
In his paper, “Should the Numbers Count?" John Taurek imagines that we are in a position such that w...
When facing a choice between saving one person and saving many, some people have argued that fairnes...
The nonidentity problem is the issue of how to justify the belief that it is wrong to bring a person...
You must either save a group of m people or a group of n people. If there are no morally relevant di...
The ‘standard interpretation’ of John Taurek’s argument in ‘Should the Numbers Count?’ imputes two t...
Suppose we can save either a larger group of persons or a distinct, smaller group from some harm. Ma...
Abstract Tom Dougherty observes that challenges to counting the numbers often ...
Discussion of the “problem of numbers” in morality has focused almost exclusively on the moral signi...
Faced with the choice between saving one person and saving two others, what should we do? It seems i...
Number theory, sometimes described as the purest of all sciences, is often perceived as little more ...
In Part Four of Reasons and Persons, Derek Parfit seeks Theory X--the Utilitarian account of the mor...
Many authors in ethics, economics, and political science endorse the Lottery Requirement, that is, t...
This article addresses Taruek’s much discussed Number Problem from a non-consequentialist point of v...
In his paper, “Should the Numbers Count?" John Taurek imagines that we are in a position such that w...
When facing a choice between saving one person and saving many, some people have argued that fairnes...
The nonidentity problem is the issue of how to justify the belief that it is wrong to bring a person...
You must either save a group of m people or a group of n people. If there are no morally relevant di...
The ‘standard interpretation’ of John Taurek’s argument in ‘Should the Numbers Count?’ imputes two t...
Suppose we can save either a larger group of persons or a distinct, smaller group from some harm. Ma...
Abstract Tom Dougherty observes that challenges to counting the numbers often ...
Discussion of the “problem of numbers” in morality has focused almost exclusively on the moral signi...
Faced with the choice between saving one person and saving two others, what should we do? It seems i...
Number theory, sometimes described as the purest of all sciences, is often perceived as little more ...
In Part Four of Reasons and Persons, Derek Parfit seeks Theory X--the Utilitarian account of the mor...
Many authors in ethics, economics, and political science endorse the Lottery Requirement, that is, t...