Priority, not equality, for possible people

Jacob M. Nebel

doi:10.1086/691568

Priority, not equality, for possible people

Jacob M. Nebel

Philosophy

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

16 Scopus citations

Abstract

How should we choose between uncertain prospects in which different possible people might exist at different levels of well-being? Alex Voorhoeve and Marc Fleurbaey offer an egalitarian answer to this question. I give some reasons to reject their answer and then sketch an alternative, which I call person-affecting prioritarianism.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	896-911
Number of pages	16
Journal	Ethics
Volume	127
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1086/691568
State	Published - Jul 2017

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Philosophy

Access to Document

10.1086/691568

Cite this

@article{982463c685e64f7cb33f168cb81f4ecc,

title = "Priority, not equality, for possible people",

abstract = "How should we choose between uncertain prospects in which different possible people might exist at different levels of well-being? Alex Voorhoeve and Marc Fleurbaey offer an egalitarian answer to this question. I give some reasons to reject their answer and then sketch an alternative, which I call person-affecting prioritarianism.",

author = "Nebel, {Jacob M.}",

year = "2017",

month = jul,

doi = "10.1086/691568",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "127",

pages = "896--911",

journal = "Ethics",

issn = "0014-1704",

publisher = "University of Chicago",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Priority, not equality, for possible people

AU - Nebel, Jacob M.

PY - 2017/7

Y1 - 2017/7

N2 - How should we choose between uncertain prospects in which different possible people might exist at different levels of well-being? Alex Voorhoeve and Marc Fleurbaey offer an egalitarian answer to this question. I give some reasons to reject their answer and then sketch an alternative, which I call person-affecting prioritarianism.

AB - How should we choose between uncertain prospects in which different possible people might exist at different levels of well-being? Alex Voorhoeve and Marc Fleurbaey offer an egalitarian answer to this question. I give some reasons to reject their answer and then sketch an alternative, which I call person-affecting prioritarianism.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85021438254&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85021438254&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1086/691568

DO - 10.1086/691568

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85021438254

SN - 0014-1704

VL - 127

SP - 896

EP - 911

JO - Ethics

JF - Ethics

IS - 4

ER -

Priority, not equality, for possible people

Abstract

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this