Stephanie Van Fossen

There are some cases where it appears permissible to perform a rescue at someone’s expense, and other cases where it appears impermissible to do so. Existing explanations for our asymmetric moral judgments about such cases either fail to provide intuitive moral verdicts or lack a satisfying rationale. In this article, I propose a new explanation of what is morally problematic about certain rescues that is subject to neither issue. My proposal is a version of the means principle which adds the essential caveat that there is no moral presumption against using someone as a means to benefit herself. By attributing moral significance to the victim’s relationship to the beneficiary rather than the agent alone, my solution points to a new underlying rationale for the means principle as well as extensional and explanatory inadequacies in competing theories.

Lara Buchak argues that her version of rank-weighted utilitarianism can accommodate an implication of the separateness of persons known as “the shift,” since it requires individuals to be more willing to accept risk for themselves than to accept inequality in society. I argue that this is mistaken. Buchak’s model fails to yield the shift when the decision-maker is distinct from the affected individual, as well as in certain social decisions where the risk attitude of the group is known. These findings suggest that models which derive social choice rules from individual decision rules will generally fail to uphold separateness.