Abstract
This article addresses Taruek’s much discussed Number Problem from a non-consequentialist point of view. I argue that some versions of the Number Problem have no solution, meaning that no alternative is at least as choice-worthy as the others, and that the best way to behave in light of such moral indeterminacy is to let chance make the decision. I contrast my proposal with F M Kamm’s nonconsequentialist argument for saving the greatest number, the Argument for Best Outcomes, which I argue does not follow from the premises it is based on.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 439-451 |
Number of pages | 13 |
Journal | Ethical Theory and Moral Practice |
Volume | 13 |
Issue number | 4 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2010 |