Partial aggregation in ethics

Abstract

Partial aggregation views in ethics, which allow for varying degrees of aggregation in moral judgments, face conceptual and practical difficulties. This article reviews axiological and purely deontic partially aggregative views and finds that they struggle to answer challenges involving situations with large numbers of people and scenarios with minor and severe burdens. Axiological views hold that larger numbers of people suffering smaller burdens are morally worse than one person suffering a greater burden, but they fail to justify this claim, especially regarding incommensurable burdens. Purely deontic views define the permissibility of actions based on the strength of competing claims but encounter complications when ranking alternative options and resolving conflicts. Additionally, their implications are counterintuitive in certain cases and raise issues with independence of irrelevant alternatives and deontic cycles. – AI-generated abstract.