救援伦理中的不精确

IF 0.6 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Analytic Philosophy Pub Date : 2022-02-17 DOI:10.1111/phib.12260
Michael Rabenberg
{"title":"救援伦理中的不精确","authors":"Michael Rabenberg","doi":"10.1111/phib.12260","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Suppose you can save one group of people or a larger group of different people, but you cannot save both groups. Are you morally required, <i>ceteris paribus</i>, to save the larger group? Some say, “No.” Far more say, without qualification, “Yes.” But some say, “It depends on the sizes of the groups.” In this paper, I argue that an attractive moral principle that seems on its face to support the second answer in fact supports a version of the third. In the process, I defend some revisionary claims about how the lives and deaths of different people compare evaluatively to one another. The most important of these for my purposes is the claim that <i>the deaths of different people are on a par, other things being equal</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":45646,"journal":{"name":"Analytic Philosophy","volume":"64 3","pages":"277-317"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Imprecision in the ethics of rescue\",\"authors\":\"Michael Rabenberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/phib.12260\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Suppose you can save one group of people or a larger group of different people, but you cannot save both groups. Are you morally required, <i>ceteris paribus</i>, to save the larger group? Some say, “No.” Far more say, without qualification, “Yes.” But some say, “It depends on the sizes of the groups.” In this paper, I argue that an attractive moral principle that seems on its face to support the second answer in fact supports a version of the third. In the process, I defend some revisionary claims about how the lives and deaths of different people compare evaluatively to one another. The most important of these for my purposes is the claim that <i>the deaths of different people are on a par, other things being equal</i>.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45646,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Analytic Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"64 3\",\"pages\":\"277-317\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Analytic Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/phib.12260\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analytic Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/phib.12260","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

假设你可以拯救一群人或一群不同的人,但你不能同时拯救两群人。在其他条件不变的情况下,你在道德上被要求去拯救更大的群体吗?有些人说:“不。”更多的人毫无保留地说:“是的。”但有些人说,“这取决于群体的规模。”在这篇论文中,我认为一个有吸引力的道德原则,表面上似乎支持第二个答案,实际上支持第三个答案的一个版本。在这个过程中,我为一些关于不同人的生与死如何相互比较的修正主张辩护。对我来说,最重要的一点是,在其他条件相同的情况下,不同人的死亡是平等的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Imprecision in the ethics of rescue

Suppose you can save one group of people or a larger group of different people, but you cannot save both groups. Are you morally required, ceteris paribus, to save the larger group? Some say, “No.” Far more say, without qualification, “Yes.” But some say, “It depends on the sizes of the groups.” In this paper, I argue that an attractive moral principle that seems on its face to support the second answer in fact supports a version of the third. In the process, I defend some revisionary claims about how the lives and deaths of different people compare evaluatively to one another. The most important of these for my purposes is the claim that the deaths of different people are on a par, other things being equal.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Analytic Philosophy
Analytic Philosophy PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Categorial versus naturalized epistemology Naked statistical evidence and verdictive justice Issue Information Bringing the deep self back to the racecourse: Rethinking accountability and the deep self
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1