Contractualism on saving the many

What is Wrong with Kamm's and Scanlon's Arguments Against Taurek

“…You should do so. Something like this interpretation of balancing is defended in Kumar (2001) and Suikkanen (2004), where it is attributed to Kamm and Scanlon. It is also defended in Kamm (1984), though it is walked back from in Kamm (1993): 101, 116-117.…”

“…I make the same assumption. 3 Bradley (2009), Brock (1998), Broome (1998), Hsieh, Strudler and Wasserman (2006), Kumar (2001), Lübbe (2008), Munoz-Dardé (2005), Norcross (2002), Otsuka (2000), Otsuka (2006), Parfit (2003), Raz (2003), Suikkanen (2004), Timmerman (2004), and Wasserman and Strudler (2003), among many others, discuss Kamm and Scanlon's arguments. 4 The argument is in Kamm (1984): 180-182, Kamm (1993): 99-122, Kamm (1998): 940-941, Kamm (2000): 33 and Kamm (2005): 53.…”

“…Since a second reason of this kind can balance the first -turning a situation in which one must save one into one in which it is permissible to save either of two people -the reason presented by the needs of a second person in one of these two groups must at least have the power to break this tie. ((1999): 232) Their idea is that each interest is to be balanced against another (Kamm), or each reason is to be balanced against another (Scanlon), or each claim is to be balanced against another (Rahul Kumar, explaining Kamm and Scanlon's view in Kumar (2001)) or each person is to be balanced against another (Kamm in parts of Kamm (1993)). How you understand Kamm and Scanlon's view depends on what balancing relates: interests, reasons, something else.…”

Fairness in life and Death Cases

“…It says instead that Catherine's claim and Jules' claim neutralize or offset each other, with the result that Jim's undefeated claim, which is the only relevant claim left to consider, now carries the day. 17 If this is right, we would not have to concede to the Weighing Interpretation that it is the conjunction of Jules' claim with Jim's claim that defeats Catherine's claim; alternatively, we would not be forced to say that is the addition of Jim's claim to Jules' claim that tips the balance in favour of saving Jules and Jim, rather than Catherine. In the relevant sense, we are considering Jim's claim alone.…”

Contractualism, Reciprocity, and Compensation

“…I wish to avoid that debate here. Apart from the papers by Reibetanz and Parfit already mentioned, a recommended reading list might include Otsuka (2000Otsuka ( , 2006, Kumar (2001), Kamm (2002), Norcross (2002) and Raz (2003). refers to the phenomenon I have described as "holism about moral justification." His brief account of it certainly raises more questions than it answers, and this is not the place to address them.…”