Partial aggregation in ethics

Philosophy Compass 16 (3):1-12 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Is there any number of people you should save from paralysis rather than saving one person from death? Is there any number of people you should save from a migraine rather than saving one person from death? Many people answer ‘yes’ and ‘no’, respectively. The aim of partially aggregative moral views is to capture and justify combinations of intuitions like these. These views contrast with fully aggregative moral views, which imply that the answer to both questions is ‘yes’, and with non-aggregative moral views, which imply that the answer to both questions is ‘no’. In this paper, I review the most natural and influential ways of developing partially aggregative views and explain the main problems they face.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,098

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-02-17

Downloads
190 (#108,170)

6 months
39 (#100,216)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Joe Horton
University College London

Citations of this work

Politics and suffering.David Enoch - forthcoming - Analytic Philosophy.
Two Reasons for Subjecting Medical AI Systems to Lower Standards than Humans.Jakob Mainz, Jens Christian Bjerring & Lauritz Munch - 2023 - Acm Proceedings of Fairness, Accountability, and Transaparency (Facct) 2023 1 (1):44-49.
Can We Measure the Badness of Death for the Person who Dies?Thomas Schramme - 2021 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 90:253-276.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

What we owe to each other.Thomas Scanlon - 1998 - Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Vagueness.Timothy Williamson - 1995 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46 (4):589-601.
Equality and priority.Derek Parfit - 1997 - Ratio 10 (3):202–221.
Good and Evil.Peter Geach - 1956 - Analysis 17 (2):33 - 42.
Should the numbers count?John Taurek - 1977 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 6 (4):293-316.

View all 49 references / Add more references