How Important Numbers Are in Rescuing Lives. A Debate on John Taurek (in Polish)

Article Sidebar

PDF (Język Polski) Full text (Język Polski)
Published: Mar 26, 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.13153/diam.51.2017.1029
Keywords:
distribution conflict saving lives John Taurek

Main Article Content

Barbara Chyrowicz
The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin

Abstract

The controversies related to John Taurek’s rescue case concern the importance of numbers in deciding about whom to help in situations in which there is a shortage of means. Taurek thinks that the number of the needy does not matter; we can save one person rather than many people. Since both common sense and the duty to responsibly administer help make us approve the decision to help those who are more in number, Taurek’s thesis seems counterintuitive. The majority of authors discussing Taurek’s thesis defend the importance of numbers in such decisions, and few are inclined to accept some of his intuitions, recognizing the counting of people who need help as morally problematic. However, the authors who defend the importance of numbers reject a simple utilitarian approach and try to justify the claim that the majority should have priority in such a way that no person involved in the conflict of distribution could charge the rescuer with not having taken his or her claims into account.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Chyrowicz, Barbara. 2017. “How Important Numbers Are in Rescuing Lives. A Debate on John Taurek (in Polish)”. Diametros, no. 51 (March):1-27. https://doi.org/10.13153/diam.51.2017.1029.
Issue
No. 51 (2017)
Section
Equality in Healthcare

By submitting his/her work to the Editorial Board, the author accepts, upon having his/her text recommended for publication, that Diametros applies the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) license to works we publish. Under this license, authors agree to make articles legally available for reuse, without permission or fees, for any purpose except commercial. Anyone may read, download, copy, print, distribute or reuse these articles without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author, as long as the author and original source are properly cited. The author holds the copyright without any other restrictions. Full information about CC-BY-NC:  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode.

Creative Commons License

Author Biography

Barbara Chyrowicz, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin

Barbara Chyrowicz, prof. dr hab.Institute of PhilosophyThe John Paul II Catholic University of LublinAl. Raclawickie 14PL 20-950 LublinE-mail: barbarac@kul.pl

Share |
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

Anscombe [2005] - G.E.M. Anscombe, Who is wronged? Philippa Foot on Double Effect:One Point, w: Human Life, Action and Ethics. Essays by G.E.M. Anscombe, red. M. Geach, L. Gormally, Imprint Academic: Charlottesville 2005, s. 249-251.
View in Google Scholar

Broome [1998] - J. Broome, Kamm on Fairness, “Philosophy and Phenomenological Research” 58(1998), nr 4, s. 955-961.
View in Google Scholar

Feinberg [1974] - J. Feinberg, Noncomparative Justice, “The Philosophical Review” 83(1974), nr 3, s. 297-338.
View in Google Scholar

Hirose [2015] - I. Hirose, Moral Aggregation, New York: Oxford University Press 2015.
View in Google Scholar

Kamm [1993] - F.M. Kamm, Morality, Mortality, vol. I: Death and Whom to Save from It, New York - Oxford: Oxford University Press 1993.
View in Google Scholar

Kamm [2007] - F.M. Kamm, Intricate Ethics. Rights, Responsibilities , and Permissible Harm, New York: Oxford University Press 2007.
View in Google Scholar

Kavka [1979] - G.S. Kavka, The numbers should count, “Philosophical Studies” 36(1979), s. 285-294.
View in Google Scholar

Kumar [2001] - R. Kumar, Contractualism on saving the many, “Analysis” 61(2001), s. 165-170.
View in Google Scholar

Nagel [1997] - Th. Nagel, Równość, w: Tenże, Pytania ostateczne, tłum. A Romaniuk, Fundacja Aletheia: Warszawa 1997, s. 145-160.
View in Google Scholar

Hsieh, Struder, Wasserman [2006] - N. Hsieh, A. Struder, D. Wasserman, The Numbers Problem, “Philosophy and Public Affairs” 34(2006) s. 352-366.
View in Google Scholar

Otsuka [2000] - M. Otsuka, Scanlon and the claims of the many versus the one, “Analysis” 60(2000), s. 288-293.
View in Google Scholar

Otsuka [2006] - M. Otsuka, Saving Lives. Moral Theory, and the Claims of Individuals, “Philosophy and Public Affairs” 34(2006), s. 109-135.
View in Google Scholar

Scanlon [2000] - T.M. Scanlon, What We Owe to Each Other, Cambridge MA, London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press 2000.
View in Google Scholar

Schelling [2006] - T.C. Schelling, Should numbers determine whom to save?, w: Tenże, The strategies of commitment, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press 2006.
View in Google Scholar

Taurek [1977] - J. Taurek, Should the Numbers Count?, “Philosophy and Public Affairs” 6(1977), s. 293-316.
View in Google Scholar

Temkin [2012] - L.S. Temkin, Rethinking the Good. Moral Ideals and the Nature of Practical Reasoning, New York: Oxford University Press 2012.
View in Google Scholar

Thomas [2012] - A. Thomas, Giving Each Person Her Due: Taurek Cases and Non-Comparative Justice, “Ethical Theory and Moral Practice” 15(2012), s. 661-676.
View in Google Scholar

Timmermann [2004] - J. Timmermann, The individualist lottery: how people count, but not their numbers, “Analysis” 64(2004), s. 106-112.
View in Google Scholar

Wasserman, Strudler [2003] - D. Wasserman, A. Strudler, Can a Nonconsequentialist Count Lives, “Philosophy and Public Affairs” 31(2003), s. 71-94.
View in Google Scholar