Speed limits, human lives, and convenience: a reply to Ridge
Article Abstract:
Michael Ridge argues that a morally significant difference exists between the theses that it is allowable to kill a guiltless person to avoid headaches and that people are not morally obligated to enforce a national speed limit. This difference can be seen in the uncertainty in the deaths that could result from each thesis. However, most people who embrace the second thesis do not base this acceptance on the idea that speed limits cannot be lowered without losing innocent lives. The analogy between the two theses does not prove that a moral difference exists between them.
Publication Name: Philosophy & Public Affairs
Subject: Political science
ISSN: 0048-3915
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
How to avoid being driven to consequentialism: a comment on Norcross
Article Abstract:
Alastair Norcross argues that consequentialists should accept the thesis that killing a guiltless person to avoid headaches should be allowed. Norcross then contends that in accepting this thesis, consequentialists have to believe that it is morally incongruent with the thesis that people are not morally obligated to enforce national speed limits. He then concludes that no such difference occurs between the two theses. However, a difference does exist and it can be found in the degree of uncertainty about the deaths that could result from each thesis.
Publication Name: Philosophy & Public Affairs
Subject: Political science
ISSN: 0048-3915
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Comparing harms: headaches and human lives
Article Abstract:
The dilemma experienced by consequentialists when faced with the 'life for headaches' claim is analyzed. The 'life for headaches' claim refers to a hypothetical situation wherein the death of one innocent person would eliminate the headaches felt by a large number of people. It is argued that consequentialists cannot claim that one person's death is worse than the suffering of many.
Publication Name: Philosophy & Public Affairs
Subject: Political science
ISSN: 0048-3915
Year: 1997
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: State needs help from Mom and Pop. Friend and foe. Not winning friends
- Abstracts: Special 85th anniversary salute
- Abstracts: United States regains No.1 position on UN Conventional Arms Register. Post-COCOM 'Wassenaar Arrangement' set to begin new export control role
- Abstracts: The Mexican peso crisis: comment on Meigs. Lessons for Asia from Mexico. Mexican monetary lessons
- Abstracts: Sino-U.S. summit yields modest advances in arms control agenda. Clinton moves to implement Sino-U.S. nuclear agreement