Can contractualism really avoid aggregation?
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.