Giving Each Person Her Due: Taurek Cases and Non-Comparative Justice

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (5):661-676 (2012)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Taurek cases focus a choice between two views of permissible action, Can Save One and Must Save Many . It is argued that Taurek cases do illustrate the rationale for Can Save One , but existing views do not highlight the fact that this is because they are examples of claims grounded on non-comparative justice. To act to save the many solely because they form a group is to discriminate against the one for an irrelevant reason. That is a canonical form of non-comparative injustice. The error lies in taking a contingency of some presentations of some Taurek cases, namely, that they involve distribution, to introduce the claims of comparative as opposed to non-comparative justice. But cases of non-comparative justice can, contingently, also involve distribution. In order to settle which form of justice applies it is necessary to examine the nature of the distribution involved and the nature of “classes” to which individuals can be assigned
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2015-11-21
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
What is the Point of Equality?Anderson, Elizabeth S.

View all 30 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
208 ( #20,952 of 50,238 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
9 ( #42,375 of 50,238 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.