Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. We Should Not Use Randomization Procedures to Allocate Scarce Life-Saving Resources.Roberto Fumagalli - 2022 - Public Health Ethics 15 (1):87-103.
    In the recent literature across philosophy, medicine and public health policy, many influential arguments have been put forward to support the use of randomization procedures to allocate scarce life-saving resources. In this paper, I provide a systematic categorization and a critical evaluation of these arguments. I shall argue that those arguments justify using RAND to allocate SLSR in fewer cases than their proponents maintain and that the relevant decision-makers should typically allocate SLSR directly to the individuals with the strongest claims (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Good Reasons for Losers: Lottery Justification and Social Risk.Kai Spiekermann - 2022 - Economics and Philosophy 38 (1):108-131.
    Many goods are distributed by processes that involve randomness. In lotteries, randomness is used to promote fairness. When taking social risks, randomness is a feature of the process. The losers of such decisions ought to be given a reason why they should accept the outcome. Surprisingly, good reasons demand more than merely equal ex ante chances. What is also required is a true statement of the form: ‘the result could easily have gone the other way and you could have been (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Equality and Priority.Derek Parfit - 1997 - Ratio 10 (3):202–221.
  • Fairness Between Competing Claims.Ben Saunders - 2010 - Res Publica 16 (1):41-55.
    Fairness is a central, but under-theorized, notion in moral and political philosophy. This paper makes two contributions. Firstly, it criticizes Broome’s seminal account of fairness in Proc Aristotelian Soc 91:87–101, showing that there are problems with restricting fairness to a matter of relative satisfaction and holding that it does not itself require the satisfaction of the claims in question. Secondly, it considers the justification of lotteries to resolve cases of ties between competing claims, which Broome claims as support for his (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Peer Review or Lottery? A Critical Analysis of Two Different Forms of Decision-Making Mechanisms for Allocation of Research Grants.Lambros Roumbanis - 2019 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 44 (6):994-1019.
    At present, peer review is the most common method used by funding agencies to make decisions about resource allocation. But how reliable, efficient, and fair is it in practice? The ex ante evaluation of scientific novelty is a fundamentally uncertain endeavor; bias and chance are embedded in the final outcome. In the current study, I will examine some of the most central problems of peer review and highlight the possible benefits of using a lottery as an alternative decision-making mechanism. Lotteries (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Three Arguments for Lotteries.Peter Stone - 2010 - Social Science Information 49 (2):147-163.
    Philosophers and social scientists have offered a variety of arguments for making certain types of decisions by lot. This paper examines three such arguments. These arguments identify indeterminacy, fairness and incentive effects as the major reasons for using lotteries to make decisions. These arguments are central to Jon Elster’s study of lottery use, Solomonic judgments, and so the paper focuses upon their treatment in this work. Upon closer examination, all three arguments have the same basic structure, in that they appeal (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • First Come, First Served?Tyler M. John & Joseph Millum - 2020 - Ethics 130 (2):179-207.
    Waiting time is widely used in health and social policy to make resource allocation decisions, yet no general account of the moral significance of waiting time exists. We provide such an account. We argue that waiting time is not intrinsically morally significant, and that the first person in a queue for a resource does not ipso facto have a right to receive that resource first. However, waiting time can and sometimes should play a role in justifying allocation decisions. First, there (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Meaning, Medicine, and Merit.Andreas L. Mogensen - 2020 - Utilitas 32 (1):90-107.
    Given the inevitability of scarcity, should public institutions ration healthcare resources so as to prioritize those who contribute more to society? Intuitively, we may feel that this would be somehow inegalitarian. I argue that the egalitarian objection to prioritizing treatment on the basis of patients’ usefulness to others is best thought of as semiotic: i.e. as having to do with what this practice would mean, convey, or express about a person's standing. I explore the implications of this conclusion when taken (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • What Would Taurek Do?Tyler Doggett - manuscript
    A very short, exegetical paper about Taurek's "Should the Numbers Count?," arguing against the view that Taurek requires giving chances.
    Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Another Defence of the Priority View.Derek Parfit - 2012 - Utilitas 24 (3):399-440.
    This article discusses the relation between prioritarian and egalitarian principles, whether and why we need to appeal to both kinds of principle, how prioritarians can answer various objections, especially those put forward by Michael Otsuka and Alex Voorhoeve, the moral difference between cases in which our acts could affect only one person or two or more people, veil of ignorance contractualism and utilitarianism, what prioritarians should claim about cases in which the effects of our acts are uncertain, the relative moral (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   49 citations  
  • Non-Reasoned Decision-Making.Peter Stone - 2014 - Economics and Philosophy 30 (2):195-214.
  • Treating Broome Fairly.Christian Piller - 2017 - Utilitas 29 (2):214-238.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Perspectives on the Fairness of Lotteries.Jan-Willem Burgers - 2016 - Res Publica 22 (2):209-224.
    When there are equally strong claimants for a scarce good, lotteries are often argued to be a fair method of allocation. This paper reproduces four of the views on the fairness of lotteries that have been presented in the literature: the distributive view; the preference view; the actual consent view; and the expressive view. It argues that these four views cannot offer plausible explanations for the fairness of lotteries. The distributive view is argued to be inadequate because, even though receiving (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Measuring a Neglected Type of Lottery Unfairness.Gerard Vong - 2018 - Economics and Philosophy 34 (1):67-86.