Higher Sem in Practical Philosophy: Martin Sjöberg "Contractualism and the Numbers Problem: Previous Solutions "

Martin Sjöberg (LU) has requested that the  Higher Seminar on Oct 17 will be a pre-read seminar, which means that there will no presentation of the material. In case you would like to attend the seminar and read his paper, please contact Toni Rønnow-Rasmussen. 

Title: Contractualism and the Numbers Problem: Previous Solutions 

Abstract: In the previous chapter we saw that, although it gives us plausible answers and explanations of how to act in disparate stakes cases, such as Transmitter Room, contractualism runs into trouble when it comes to equal stakes cases. Seemingly, this is due to the Individualist Restriction and its role in contractualism. In response to the threat that these cases pose, a wide range of responses have been suggested. They range from completely dropping the Individualist Restriction, to claiming that contractualism actually has the tools necessary to handle the cases, to claiming that although contractualism seemingly has some counterintuitive implications in these cases, these implications should in fact be embraced. In what follows I will critically discuss some versions of these responses. Section 2 deals with Derek Parfit’s suggestion of completely dropping the Individualist Restriction from contractualism. The following three sections deal with three attempts at salvaging the Individualist Restriction: Section 3 deals with Rahul Kumar’s Symmetry Account, according to which opposing and symmetrical claims offset each other, and any additional claims of the same sort decide the matter. Section 4 deals with R. Jay Wallace’s Ex Ante Account, according to which we ought to take an ex ante perspective in equal stakes cases, and therefore save the larger group. Section 5 deals with Jessica Fischer’s Revisionist Account, according to which the seemingly implausible implications of contractualism are in fact much more commonsensical than typically assumed. I show that all four of these proposals face serious challenges that should leave us skeptical of their ability to deal with the task at hand.

Welcome

Toni Rønnow-Rasmussen