Competing Claims and the Separateness of Persons

Abstract I argue that the use of the separateness of persons in the debate between the priority view and the competing claims view is deeply flawed. In making the case, I argue for three points. First, that the actual argument against the priority view relies on intuitions about the worse off that has no connection to the separateness of persons. Second, that the competing claims view is derivative of Thomas Nagel’s pairwise comparison view. However, Nagel’s justification for pairwise comparisons is based on an interpretation of equality and not the separateness of persons. Third, I offer various interpretations of the separateness of persons and conclude that that the competing claims view violates most interpretations of the separateness of persons. Further, the one that is compatible with the competing claims view leads to the tyranny of the worst off.