The moral importance of selecting people randomly

Bioethics 22 (6):321–327 (2008)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article discusses some ethical principles for distributing pandemic influenza vaccine and other indivisible goods. I argue that a number of principles for distributing pandemic influenza vaccine recently adopted by several national governments are morally unacceptable because they put too much emphasis on utilitarian considerations, such as the ability of the individual to contribute to society. Instead, it would be better to distribute vaccine by setting up a lottery. The argument for this view is based on a purely consequentialist account of morality; i.e. an action is right if and only if its outcome is optimal. However, unlike utilitarians I do not believe that alternatives should be ranked strictly according to the amount of happiness or preference satisfaction they bring about. Even a mere chance to get some vaccine matters morally, even if it is never realized.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,164

External links

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

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
79 (#202,735)

6 months
3 (#857,336)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

Equality and priority.Derek Parfit - 1997 - Ratio 10 (3):202–221.
Should the numbers count?John Taurek - 1977 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 6 (4):293-316.
V*—Fairness.John Broome - 1991 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 91 (1):87-102.
Saving lives, moral theory, and the claims of individuals.Michael Otsuka - 2006 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 34 (2):109–135.
Aggregation and numbers.Iwao Hirose - 2004 - Utilitas 16 (1):62-79.

View all 9 references / Add more references