Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Still Lives for Headaches: A reply to Dorsey and Voorhoeve

  • JULIUS SCHÖNHERR (a1)
Abstract

There is no large number of very small bads that is worse than a small number of very large bads – or so, some maintain, it seems plausible to say. In this article, I criticize and reject two recently proposed vindications of the above intuition put forth by Dale Dorsey and Alex Voorhoeve. Dorsey advocates for a threshold marked by the interference with a person's global life projects: any bad that interferes with the satisfaction of a life project is worse than any number of bads that don't interfere with such a life project. Such thresholds, I argue, are broadly implausible. Voorhoeve gives a contractualist account for the irrelevance of minor bads. His account, I argue, does not, among other things, provide the right kind of reason in defence of the above intuition.

Copyright
References
Hide All

1 ‘disvaluable’, for the purposes of this article, means ‘possessive of negative value’.

2 Broome John, ‘No Argument against the Continuity of Value: Reply to Dorsey’, Utilitas 22.4 (2010), pp. 494–6, and Norcross Alastair, ‘Comparing Harms: Headaches and Human Lives’, Philosophy & Public Affairs 26.2 (1997), pp. 135–67.

3 Voorhoeve Alex, ‘How Should We Aggregate Competing Claims?’, Ethics 125.1 (2014), pp. 6487 ; Dorsey Dale, ‘Headaches, Lives and Value’, Utilitas 21.1 (2009), pp. 3658 ; Dorsey Dale, ‘Preferences, Welfare, and the Status-quo Bias’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88.3 (2010), pp. 535–54; Temkin Larry S., ‘Intransitivity and the Mere Addition Paradox’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 16.2 (1987), pp. 138–87.

4 Dorsey, ‘Headaches, Lives and Value’.

5 Dorsay, ‘Headaches, Lives and Value’.

6 Broome, ‘No Argument against the Continuity of Value: Reply to Dorsey’, p. 495.

7 A similar chain can be found in Temkin Larry S., Rethinking the Good: Moral Ideals and the Nature of Practical Reasoning (Oxford, 2011).

8 For instance, Dorsey says: ‘[b]oth headaches and deaths are intrinsically bad. But death is worse. In fact, saving someone from death is lexically prior in value to the relief of headaches. In other words, though headaches are bad, no amount of headaches equal the badness of death’ (Dorsey, ‘Headaches, Lives and Value’, p. 39).

9 This problem is by no means a recent invention. In the influential 1978 article ‘Innumerate Ethics’ Derek Parfit notices that aggregating claims across people leads to a Lives for Headaches-type conclusion. See Parfit Derek, ‘Innumerate Ethics’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 7.4 (1978), pp. 285301 .

10 Dorsey, ‘Headaches, Lives and Value’, p. 42.

11 Dorsey, ‘Headaches, Lives and Value’, p. 46.

12 Dorsey, ‘Headaches, Lives and Value’, p. 42.

13 Dorsey, ‘Headaches, Lives and Value’, p. 43.

14 Griffin James, Well-being: Its Meaning, Measurement, and Moral Importance (Oxford, 1986).

15 Let ‘≺’ stand for ‘is worse than’.

16 Another case against aggregation is put forth by Brennan Samantha, ‘Moral Lumps’, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 9.3 (2006), pp. 249–63. Her basic thought is that certain minor bads don't ‘lump’ together to outweigh larger bads. However, unlike Voorhoeve, she does not give a rationale against lumping. Furthermore, in Dorsey's Chain enough instances of one bad do, at least prima facie, lump together to outweigh the next state in the chain. For these reasons I won't focus my discussion on her doubts concerning aggregation.

17 Voorhoeve, ‘How Should We Aggregate Competing Claims?’, p. 66.

18 Voorhoeve, ‘How Should We Aggregate Competing Claims?’, p. 74.

19 Voorhoeve, ‘How Should We Aggregate Competing Claims?’, p. 73.

20 Parfit, ‘Innumerate Ethics’, p. 287. Similarly, Francis Kamm argues that harms that seem subjectively equivalent (e.g. my arm and your life) are not objectively equivalent ( Kamm Frances, ‘Précis of Morality, Mortality, vol. 1: Death and Whom to Save from It’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58.4 (1998), pp. 939–45). The resource allocator, however, is bound only by the objective considerations, not by the subjective considerations.

21 Note that the fact that the resource allocator is not bound by special self-concern-related reasons B would have is not to prescribe any particular way A should go about her decisions. All that is important right now is that B should realize that A is not bound by any reasons constituted by permissible self-concern.

22 Voorhoeve, ‘How Should We Aggregate Competing Claims?’, p. 74.

23 I am grateful to Samuel Kerstein, Peter Carruthers, Dan Moller, Evan Westra, Javiera Perez-Gomez and Aiden Woodcock for their comments on drafts of this article.

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? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 1
Total number of PDF views: 26 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 150 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 27th June 2017 - 21st January 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.