Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Instrumental Needs: A Relational Account.Espen Dyrnes Stabell - 2024 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice (4):1-17.
    Instrumentalism about need suggests that the significance of an agent's need for x depends on the end for which x is needed. Instrumental accounts have, however, been vague about the transfer or transmission of normative significance supposed to be occurring from ends to needs. How should such transmission be understood, and how can we assess the amount or degree of significance being transmitted in particular cases? The Relational Account (RA) combines work on normative transmission principles and the strength of reasons (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Good Enough? The Minimally Good Life Account of the Basic Minimum.Nicole Hassoun - 2022 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 100 (2):330-341.
    ABSTRACT What kind of basic minimum do we owe to others? This paper defends a new procedure for answering this question. It argues that its minimally good life account has some advantages over the main alternatives and that neither the first-, nor third-, person perspective can help us to arrive at an adequate account. Rather, it employs the second-person perspective of free, reasonable, care. There might be other conditions for distributive justice, and morality certainly requires more than helping everyone to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Enough is too much: the excessiveness objection to sufficientarianism.Carl Knight - 2022 - Economics and Philosophy 38 (2):275-299.
    The standard version of sufficientarianism maintains that providing people with enough, or as close to enough as is possible, is lexically prior to other distributive goals. This article argues that this is excessive – more than distributive justice allows – in four distinct ways. These concern the magnitude of advantage, the number of beneficiaries, responsibility and desert, and above-threshold distribution. Sufficientarians can respond by accepting that providing enough unconditionally is more than distributive justice allows, instead balancing sufficiency against other considerations.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Enhancing Global Health Impact—Beyond the Basic Minimum, Metrics and Ethical Consumption.Nicole Hassoun - 2022 - Public Health Ethics 15 (2):138-146.
    How should we measure medicines’ global health impact to set targets, monitor performance and improve health around the world? Can such a metric provide a philosophically well-grounded basis for an ethical consumption campaign that will create incentives for pharmaceutical companies and other agents to expand (equitable) access to essential medicines? And if such metrics exist, how should we think about our individual obligations to support ethical consumption campaigns on this basis? This paper reflects on these questions in light of Tim (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • What Do ‘Humans’ Need? Sufficiency and Pluralism.Ben Davies - forthcoming - Ethics, Policy and Environment.
    Sufficientarians face a problem of arbitrariness: why place a sufficiency threshold at any particular point? One response is to seek universal goods to justify a threshold. However, this faces difficulties (despite sincere efforts) by either being too low, or failing to accommodate individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Some sufficientarians have appealed to individuals’ subjective evaluations of their lives. I build on this idea, considering another individualized threshold: ‘tolerability’. I respond to some traditional challenges to individualistic approaches to justice: ‘expensive’ tastes, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • The Minimally Good Life Account of Abortion's Permissibility.Nicholas Kreuder & Nicole Hassoun - 2024 - Public Affairs Quarterly 38 (3):213-238.
    Judith Jarvis Thomson argued that abortion is permissible because no one must sacrifice their rights to bodily autonomy. However, assuming a fetus has full moral personhood, and focusing on when abortion is unjust in particular, we argue that Thomson's view of what we ought to sacrifice to aid others is too impoverished. Instead, we argue that abortion is permissible when pregnancy threatens the ability of the mother, or the child, to live minimally well. After explaining the minimally good life account (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark