Statistical People and Counterfactual Indeterminacy
Statistical People and Counterfactual Indeterminacy
Sometimes, when we fail to help people, there is no fact of the matter about precisely who we would have helped, if we had helped. Counterfactuals are indeterminate. Does this fact vindicate some form of ’identified person bias’? Here is an argument that it does: When there is a particular person who we would have helped, if we had helped (when the victim of our neglect is in this sense ’identified’), our failing to help is very bad, because bad for that person. When there is no particular person who we would have helped, if we had helped (when the victim of our neglect is in this sense ’merely statistical’), our failing to help is not very bad, because not very bad for any particular person. But the argument does not work. This chapter explains why.
Keywords: identified person bias, counterfactuals, counterfactual indeterminacy, neglect, statistical benefits
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .
