Year: 2025
Type: article
Abstract: ABSTRACT Individualist or non‐aggregative moral theories, such as Scanlonian contractualism, deny the plausibility or the permissibility of interpersonal aggregation of harms and benefits or individual claims to determine what we ought to do. There has recently been much discussion about how these theories should be extended to cover cases in which we face empirical uncertainty about the effects of our actions. In this article, I provide a critical introduction to this debate. I introduce the two main opposing approaches to this problem, the ex‐ante and the ex‐post approach, and introduce the main objections they face.
Source: Philosophy Compass
DOI: 10.1111/phc3.70055
Author: Korbinian Rüger
Institution: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Language: English
Subfield: Philosophy
Field: Arts and Humanities
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: hybrid
Estimated APC paid: $2,900
OpenAlex ID: W4414032259