Sufficiency principles generally state that it is especially important for justice that people have enough of certain goods, but it can be hard to give a convincing answer as to what level of goods counts as enough. This paper examines a recent sufficiency view by George Sher, who argues that the threshold level of resources and opportunities that the state should provide for each citizen is whatever level gives one enough leverage to obtain further resources and opportunities without inordinate difficulty (...) or sacrifice. The argument relies on the idea that, with regard to resources and opportunities, the sufficient ability to live one’s life effectively requires only that one have enough of them as leverage. While Sher’s general account regarding “what counts as enough?” is promising in countering certain challenges typically raised against sufficiency principles, the approach to determine the threshold of resources and opportunities in terms of leverage is problematic. (shrink)

Ethical theories in the Kantian tradition tend to centre heavily on rational agency, so it may appear challenging for such theories to account for the wrongness of bodily violence, especially the wrongness of bodily violence to animals who lack rationality. This article develops a Kantian explanation for the pro tanto wrongness of killing or injuring animals who have agency and lack rationality, based on a Kantian explanation for the pro tanto wrongness of killing or injuring people. Even though morality is (...) grounded in the will of rational agents or the value of rational agency, one does not have to be a rational agent to be morally considerable. (shrink)

Similar to Immanuel Kant, Adam Ferguson links freedom of the will, the existence of God, and immortality to the possibility of moral conduct. We explore these three dimensions of Ferguson's thought across several of his works. Ferguson's account of these postulates of morality not only anticipates Kant but incorporates a religious sensibility that manifests an appeal to nature rather than scripture.

Investigating the causal relationship between exposure and time-to-event outcome is an important topic in biomedical research. Previous literature has discussed the potential issues of using hazard ratio (HR) as the marginal causal effect measure due to noncollapsibility. In this article, we advocate using restricted mean survival time (RMST) difference as a marginal causal effect measure, which is collapsible and has a simple interpretation as the difference of area under survival curves over a certain time horizon. To address both measured and (...) unmeasured confounding, a matched design with sensitivity analysis is proposed. Matching is used to pair similar treated and untreated subjects together, which is generally more robust than outcome modeling due to potential misspecifications. Our propensity score matched RMST difference estimator is shown to be asymptotically unbiased, and the corresponding variance estimator is calculated by accounting for the correlation due to matching. Simulation studies also demonstrate that our method has adequate empirical performance and outperforms several competing methods used in practice. To assess the impact of unmeasured confounding, we develop a sensitivity analysis strategy by adapting the E-value approach to matched data. We apply the proposed method to the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study (ARIC) to examine the causal effect of smoking on stroke-free survival. (shrink)