Numbers Count

Abstract

Abstract Chapter 2 defends the view that, while there is more requiring reason overall to save A and C than there is to save A and more requiring reason overall to save B and C than there is to save A, there is an individualist permitting reason to save A in the latter “conflict case” but not in the former “no-conflict case.” While the individualist permitting reason to save A’s life does not make it permissible to save A’s life instead of saving B’s life and C’s life, it does make it permissible to save A’s life instead of saving B’s life and C’s finger. The chapter further shows how this view does not imply various counterintuitive claims, such as the “fully aggregative” claim that one is required to save billions of people from very mild pain rather than save one person from very intense agony.