Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Political science

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Political science

Speed limits, human lives, and convenience: a reply to Ridge

Article Abstract:

Michael Ridge argues that a morally significant difference exists between the theses that it is allowable to kill a guiltless person to avoid headaches and that people are not morally obligated to enforce a national speed limit. This difference can be seen in the uncertainty in the deaths that could result from each thesis. However, most people who embrace the second thesis do not base this acceptance on the idea that speed limits cannot be lowered without losing innocent lives. The analogy between the two theses does not prove that a moral difference exists between them.

Author: Norcross, Alastair
Publisher: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Publication Name: Philosophy & Public Affairs
Subject: Political science
ISSN: 0048-3915
Year: 1998
Ethics

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


How to avoid being driven to consequentialism: a comment on Norcross

Article Abstract:

Alastair Norcross argues that consequentialists should accept the thesis that killing a guiltless person to avoid headaches should be allowed. Norcross then contends that in accepting this thesis, consequentialists have to believe that it is morally incongruent with the thesis that people are not morally obligated to enforce national speed limits. He then concludes that no such difference occurs between the two theses. However, a difference does exist and it can be found in the degree of uncertainty about the deaths that could result from each thesis.

Author: Ridge, Michael
Publisher: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Publication Name: Philosophy & Public Affairs
Subject: Political science
ISSN: 0048-3915
Year: 1998
Criticism and interpretation, Philosophy, Norcross, Alastair

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Comparing harms: headaches and human lives

Article Abstract:

The dilemma experienced by consequentialists when faced with the 'life for headaches' claim is analyzed. The 'life for headaches' claim refers to a hypothetical situation wherein the death of one innocent person would eliminate the headaches felt by a large number of people. It is argued that consequentialists cannot claim that one person's death is worse than the suffering of many.

Author: Norcross, Alastair
Publisher: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Publication Name: Philosophy & Public Affairs
Subject: Political science
ISSN: 0048-3915
Year: 1997
Transcript

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: Analysis, Ethical aspects, Murder, Speed limits, Consequentialism (Ethics)
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: State needs help from Mom and Pop. Friend and foe. Not winning friends
  • Abstracts: Special 85th anniversary salute
  • Abstracts: United States regains No.1 position on UN Conventional Arms Register. Post-COCOM 'Wassenaar Arrangement' set to begin new export control role
  • Abstracts: The Mexican peso crisis: comment on Meigs. Lessons for Asia from Mexico. Mexican monetary lessons
  • Abstracts: Sino-U.S. summit yields modest advances in arms control agenda. Clinton moves to implement Sino-U.S. nuclear agreement
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.