Can contractualism really avoid aggregation?
Abstract
This paper presents multiple reasons for why contractualists should adopt a weighted
lottery in saving-lives cases. First, under both a principle allowing us to hold an equalchance
lottery as well as a principle that allows us to save the majority we can find
individuals who could reasonably reject this. Second, Scanlon's case for saving the
majority either involves aggregation or under its nonaggregative re-interpretation has
other significant costs attached to it. Third, alternative nonaggregative cases for saving
the majority are subject to a forceful objection by Taurek. Fourth, a weighted lottery
also seems attractive in life-saving cases that partly involve smaller harms.