I think this ‘heap paradox’ quite often comes up in philosophy (an example coming to my mind is the distinction between the foetus that is entitled to moral consideration and the one that is not—there seems to be a point or points in foetal development after which the foetus gains ‘moral status’ or something like this). It is true that, where this problem can be avoided, the theory/explanation which does is more desirable in light of this, so this is a good point to make.
In Theron Pummer’s recent book ‘The Rules of Rescue,’ he gives a few thought experiments to motivate the intuition that there is a point at which costs to oneself do not suffice to out-weigh the moral significance of the plight/likely death of someone else, and yet a point after which these do suffice.
Thank you for your comment.
I think this ‘heap paradox’ quite often comes up in philosophy (an example coming to my mind is the distinction between the foetus that is entitled to moral consideration and the one that is not—there seems to be a point or points in foetal development after which the foetus gains ‘moral status’ or something like this). It is true that, where this problem can be avoided, the theory/explanation which does is more desirable in light of this, so this is a good point to make.
In Theron Pummer’s recent book ‘The Rules of Rescue,’ he gives a few thought experiments to motivate the intuition that there is a point at which costs to oneself do not suffice to out-weigh the moral significance of the plight/likely death of someone else, and yet a point after which these do suffice.