Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 9
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Gertken, Jan 2016. Mixed Feelings About Mixed Solutions. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, Vol. 19, Issue. 1, p. 59.


    Peterson, Martin 2010. Some Versions of the Number Problem Have No Solution. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, Vol. 13, Issue. 4, p. 439.


    Saunders, Ben 2009. A Defence of Weighted Lotteries in Life Saving Cases. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, Vol. 12, Issue. 3, p. 279.


    LIAO, S. MATTHEW 2008. Who Is Afraid of Numbers?. Utilitas, Vol. 20, Issue. 04, p. 447.


    LÜBBE, WEYMA 2008. Taurek's No Worse Claim. Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 36, Issue. 1, p. 69.


    PETERSON, MARTIN 2008. THE MORAL IMPORTANCE OF SELECTING PEOPLE RANDOMLY. Bioethics, Vol. 22, Issue. 6, p. 321.


    RIVERA-LÓPEZ, EDUARDO 2008. Probabilities in Tragic Choices. Utilitas, Vol. 20, Issue. 03, p. 323.


    STARK, ANDREW 2008. Benefit versus Numbers versus Helping the Worst-off: An Alternative to the Prevalent Approach to the Just Distribution of Resources. Utilitas, Vol. 20, Issue. 03, p. 356.


    Hirose, Iwao 2007. WEIGHTED LOTTERIES IN LIFE AND DEATH CASES. Ratio, Vol. 20, Issue. 1, p. 45.


    ×

Aggregation and Numbers

  • IWAO HIROSE (a1)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0953820803001067
  • Published online: 01 March 2004
Abstract

This article considers the reach of arguments for saving the greater number without interpersonal aggregation, and argues that interpersonal aggregation is useful to encompass the proper respect due to each separate person. I first give a precise definition of interpersonal aggregation, which many non-utilitarians try to avoid. Then, I show that consequentialism and Scanlon can justify the case for the greater number without interpersonal aggregation. However, I propose the Aggregation Approach, which justifies the case for the greater number in some cases and the case for tossing a fair coin in other cases. I conclude that interpersonal aggregation does not disrespect the separate person.

Copyright
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Utilitas
  • ISSN: 0953-8208
  • EISSN: 1741-6183
  • URL: /core/journals/utilitas
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×