Should the probabilities count?
- Katharina Berndt Rasmussen
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
When facing a choice between saving one person and saving many, some people have argued that fairness requires us to decide without aggregating numbers; rather we should decide by coin toss or some form of lottery, or alternatively we should straightforwardly save the greater number but justify this in a non-aggregating contractualist way. This paper expands the debate beyond well-known number cases to previously under-considered probability cases, in which not (only) the numbers of people, but (also) the probabilities of success for saving people vary. It is shown that, in these latter cases, both the coin toss and the lottery lead to what is called an awkward conclusion, which makes probabilities count in a problematic way. Attempts to avoid this conclusion are shown to lead into difficulties as well. Finally, it is shown that while the greater number method cannot be justified on contractualist grounds for probability cases, it may be replaced by another decision method which is so justified. This decision method is extensionally equivalent to maximising expected value and seems to be the least problematic way of dealing with probability cases in a non-aggregating manner.
- Broome, J. (1990–1991). Fairness. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series 91:87–101.
- Hirose, I (2001) Saving the greater number without combining claims. Analysis 61: pp. 341-342 CrossRef
- Hirose, I (2007) Weighted lotteries in life and death cases. Ratio 20: pp. 45-56 CrossRef
- Huseby, R. (forthcoming). Spinning the wheel or tossing a coin? Utilitas.
- Kamm, FM (1993) Morality, mortality volume I: Death and whom to save from it. Oxford University Press, Oxford
- Kavka, GS (1979) The numbers should count. Philosophical Studies 36: pp. 285-294 CrossRef
- Kumar, R (2001) Contractualism on saving the many. Analysis 61: pp. 165-170 CrossRef
- Lawlor, R (2006) Taurek, numbers and probabilities. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 9: pp. 149-166 CrossRef
- Otsuka, M (2000) Scanlon and the claims of the many versus the one. Analysis 60: pp. 288-293 CrossRef
- Rivera-López, E (2008) Probabilities in tragic choices. Utilitas 20: pp. 323-333 CrossRef
- Saunders, B (2009) A defence of weighted lotteries in saving life cases. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 12: pp. 279-290 CrossRef
- Scanlon, T (2000) What we owe to each other. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
- Schelling, TC (2006) Strategies of commitment and other essays. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
- Taurek, JM (1977) Should the numbers count?. Philosophy and Public Affairs 6: pp. 293-316
- Timmermann, J (2004) The individualist lottery: How people count, but not their numbers. Analysis 64: pp. 106-112 CrossRef
- Should the probabilities count?
Volume 159, Issue 2 , pp 205-218
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Coin toss
- Number cases
- Probability cases
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Philosophy, Stockholm University, 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden