How (Not) to Argue for the Rule of Rescue: Claims of Individuals versus Group Solidarity

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

The idea of the rule of rescue is that special weight should be given to protecting lives of assignable individuals in need now even if protecting others in the future would be more cost-effective. How can this be justified? One way to cast the problem is to see it as a conflict between a collectivist approach that emphasizes protecting groups or populations versus an approach that boils down to protecting individuals. This chapter argues that one individual-oriented approach to ethics, namely contractualism, will not succeed in justifying the rule of rescue. A more promising route would instead be to focus on collectivistic values like solidarity. It argues that values like solidarity and community may render support for rescue cases. Yet such arguments are not without problems. Moreover, they have limited relevance to discussions about resource allocation in health care.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationIdentified versus Statistical Lives: An Interdisciplinary Perspective
EditorsGlenn Cohen, Norman Daniels, Nir Eyal
Place of PublicationNew York
PublisherOxford University Press
Pages137-149
ISBN (Print)9780190217471
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

solidarity
Group
Values
moral philosophy
health care
costs
resources
community

Cite this

Verweij, M. F. (2015). How (Not) to Argue for the Rule of Rescue: Claims of Individuals versus Group Solidarity. In G. Cohen, N. Daniels, & N. Eyal (Eds.), Identified versus Statistical Lives: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (pp. 137-149). New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190217471.003.0010
Verweij, M.F. / How (Not) to Argue for the Rule of Rescue : Claims of Individuals versus Group Solidarity. Identified versus Statistical Lives: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. editor / Glenn Cohen ; Norman Daniels ; Nir Eyal. New York : Oxford University Press, 2015. pp. 137-149
@inbook{6a4f2d7f51044b9b985f565eac31322c,
title = "How (Not) to Argue for the Rule of Rescue: Claims of Individuals versus Group Solidarity",
abstract = "The idea of the rule of rescue is that special weight should be given to protecting lives of assignable individuals in need now even if protecting others in the future would be more cost-effective. How can this be justified? One way to cast the problem is to see it as a conflict between a collectivist approach that emphasizes protecting groups or populations versus an approach that boils down to protecting individuals. This chapter argues that one individual-oriented approach to ethics, namely contractualism, will not succeed in justifying the rule of rescue. A more promising route would instead be to focus on collectivistic values like solidarity. It argues that values like solidarity and community may render support for rescue cases. Yet such arguments are not without problems. Moreover, they have limited relevance to discussions about resource allocation in health care.",
author = "M.F. Verweij",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190217471.003.0010",
language = "English",
isbn = "9780190217471",
pages = "137--149",
editor = "Glenn Cohen and Norman Daniels and Eyal, {Nir }",
booktitle = "Identified versus Statistical Lives: An Interdisciplinary Perspective",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",

}

Verweij, MF 2015, How (Not) to Argue for the Rule of Rescue: Claims of Individuals versus Group Solidarity. in G Cohen, N Daniels & N Eyal (eds), Identified versus Statistical Lives: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 137-149. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190217471.003.0010

How (Not) to Argue for the Rule of Rescue : Claims of Individuals versus Group Solidarity. / Verweij, M.F.

Identified versus Statistical Lives: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. ed. / Glenn Cohen; Norman Daniels; Nir Eyal. New York : Oxford University Press, 2015. p. 137-149.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterAcademicpeer-review

TY - CHAP

T1 - How (Not) to Argue for the Rule of Rescue

T2 - Claims of Individuals versus Group Solidarity

AU - Verweij, M.F.

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - The idea of the rule of rescue is that special weight should be given to protecting lives of assignable individuals in need now even if protecting others in the future would be more cost-effective. How can this be justified? One way to cast the problem is to see it as a conflict between a collectivist approach that emphasizes protecting groups or populations versus an approach that boils down to protecting individuals. This chapter argues that one individual-oriented approach to ethics, namely contractualism, will not succeed in justifying the rule of rescue. A more promising route would instead be to focus on collectivistic values like solidarity. It argues that values like solidarity and community may render support for rescue cases. Yet such arguments are not without problems. Moreover, they have limited relevance to discussions about resource allocation in health care.

AB - The idea of the rule of rescue is that special weight should be given to protecting lives of assignable individuals in need now even if protecting others in the future would be more cost-effective. How can this be justified? One way to cast the problem is to see it as a conflict between a collectivist approach that emphasizes protecting groups or populations versus an approach that boils down to protecting individuals. This chapter argues that one individual-oriented approach to ethics, namely contractualism, will not succeed in justifying the rule of rescue. A more promising route would instead be to focus on collectivistic values like solidarity. It argues that values like solidarity and community may render support for rescue cases. Yet such arguments are not without problems. Moreover, they have limited relevance to discussions about resource allocation in health care.

U2 - 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190217471.003.0010

DO - 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190217471.003.0010

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9780190217471

SP - 137

EP - 149

BT - Identified versus Statistical Lives: An Interdisciplinary Perspective

A2 - Cohen, Glenn

A2 - Daniels, Norman

A2 - Eyal, Nir

PB - Oxford University Press

CY - New York

ER -

Verweij MF. How (Not) to Argue for the Rule of Rescue: Claims of Individuals versus Group Solidarity. In Cohen G, Daniels N, Eyal N, editors, Identified versus Statistical Lives: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. 2015. p. 137-149 https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190217471.003.0010