Cost Effectiveness Analysis and Fairness

This article considers some different views of fairness and whether they conflict with the use of a version of Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) that calls for maximizing health benefits per dollar spent. Among the concerns addressed are whether this version of CEA ignores the concerns of the worst off and inappropriately aggregates small benefits to many people. I critically examine the views of Daniel Hausman and Peter Singer who defend this version of CEA and Eric Nord among others who criticize it. I come to focus in particular on the use of CEA in allocating scarce resources to the disabled

Other‐Sacrificing Options

I argue that you can be permitted to discount the interests of your adversaries even though doing so would be impartially suboptimal. This means that, in addition to the kinds of moral options that the literature traditionally recognises, there exist what I call other-sacrificing options. I explore the idea that you cannot discount the interests of your adversaries as much as you can favour the interests of your intimates; if this is correct, then there is an asymmetry between negative partiality toward your adversaries and positive partiality toward your intimates

Abortion Bans and Cruelty

Abortion bans have been characterized as cruel especially in not allowing exceptions for rape or incest. The article first examines one approach to morally justifying bans based on the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) which distinguishes morally between killing or letting die intending death versus doing so only foreseeing death. It then presents some criticisms of the implications of the DDE but also argues that what the doctrine permits helps provide a ground for the permissibility of abortions even if the fetus is a person. Whether there are limits on applying this argument is also considered. In conclusion, the article considers whether and why not permitting exceptions to bans for rape and incest is cruel and whether cruelty is a ground for opposition to bans

Problems in the morality of killing and letting die.

Thesis. 1980. Ph.D.--Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy.MICROFICHE COPY AVAILABLE IN ARCHIVES AND HUMANITIES.Bibliography: leaves 339-341.Ph.D

Post-Collision Interaction with Wannier electrons

A theory of the Post-Collision Interaction (PCI) is developed for the case when an electron atom impact results in creation of two low-energy Wannier electrons and an ion excited into an autoionizing state. The following autoionization decay exposes the Wannier pair to the influence of PCI resulting in variation of the shape of the line in the autoionization spectrum. An explicit dependence of the autoionization profile on the wave function of the Wannier pair is found. PCI provides an opportunity to study this wave function for a wide area of distancesComment: 33 pages, Latex, IOP style, and 3 figures fig1.ps, fig2.ps, fig3.p

Atomistic modelling of large-scale metal film growth fronts

We present simulations of metallization morphologies under ionized sputter deposition conditions, obtained by a new theoretical approach. By means of molecular dynamics simulations using a carefully designed interaction potential, we analyze the surface adsorption, reflection, and etching reactions taking place during Al physical vapor deposition, and calculate their relative probability. These probabilities are then employed in a feature-scale cellular-automaton simulator, which produces calculated film morphologies in excellent agreement with scanning-electron-microscopy data on ionized sputter deposition.Comment: RevTeX 4 pages, 2 figure

Knowledge of Objective 'Oughts': Monotonicity and the New Miners Puzzle

In the classic Miners case, an agent subjectively ought to do what they know is objectively wrong. This case shows that the subjective and objective ‘oughts’ are somewhat independent. But there remains a powerful intuition that the guidance of objective ‘oughts’ is more authoritative—so long as we know what they tell us. We argue that this intuition must be given up in light of a monotonicity principle, which undercuts the rationale for saying that objective ‘oughts’ are an authoritative guide for agents and advisors

An archaeology of borders: qualitative political theory as a tool in addressing moral distance

Interviews, field observations and other qualitative methods increasingly are being used to inform the construction of arguments in normative political theory. This article works to demonstrate the strong salience of some kinds of qualitative material for cosmopolitan arguments to extend distributive boundaries. The incorporation of interviews and related qualitative material can make the moral claims of excluded others more vivid and possibly more difficult to dismiss by advocates of strong priority to compatriots in distributions. Further, it may help to promote the kind of perspective taking that has been associated with actually motivating a willingness to aid by individuals. Illustrative findings are presented from field work conducted for a normative project on global citizenship, including interviews with unauthorized immigrants and the analysis of artifacts left behind on heavily used migrant trails