Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:41:54.582Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aggregation and Two Moral Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2005

F. M. KAMM
F. M. KAMM
Affiliation:
Harvard University, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I begin by reconsidering the arguments of John Taurek and Elizabeth Anscombe on whether the number of people we can help counts morally. I then consider arguments that numbers should count given by F. M. Kamm and Thomas Scanlon, and criticism of them by Michael Otsuka. I examine how different conceptions of the moral method known as pairwise comparison are at work in these different arguments and what the ideas of balancing and tie-breaking signify for decision-making in various types of cases. I conclude by considering how another moral method that I call virtual divisibility functions and what it helps reveal about an argument by Otsuka against those who do not think numbers count.

Type
Research Article
Information
Utilitas , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 1 - 23
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

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.)