DISCUSSION
Rescue Cases, the Majority Rule, and the Greatest Number
Volume 28, Number 3, October 2024, Pages 508–514
PDFAbstract
In a recent paper, Tim Henning argues that the result that we should save the greatest number in rescue cases can be established on procedural grounds without making use of the aggregation of interests. He first argues that we ought to respect the affected persons’ equal claims to have a say in the rescue decision and that this can only be achieved by the majority rule, which consists in giving each affected person an equal vote. Then he argues for the second claim that if everyone votes in their self-interest, then the greatest number will be saved. I present a class of cases in which the second claim fails. This establishes that even if self-interested voting is assumed, the majority rule does not always lead to the greatest number being saved.
Copyright © 2024 Jonas Werner
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.
|
Against Hirose’s Argument for Saving the Greater Number
Dong-Kyung Lee
Contractualism, Complaints, and Risk
Bastian Steuwer
Moral Worth in Gettier Cases
Neil Sinhababu
Civil Disobedience and Animal Rescue: A Reply to Milligan
Daniel Weltman
Rescue and Necessity: A Reply to Quong
Joel Joseph and Theron Pummer
Slack Taking and Burden Dumping: Fair Cost Sharing in Duties to Rescue
Aaron Finley
Positive Rights: Two-Person Cases
David Alm
Disagreement, Unilateral Judgment, and Kant’s Argument for Rule by Law
Daniel Koltonski
The Eligibility of Rule Utilitarianism
David Mokriski
A Counterexample to Parfit’s Rule Consequentialism
Jacob Nebel
