Uploaded February 2020 | Updated September 2026, 31 minutes ago
There are few theories of fairness in the philosophical literature, and those theories are controversial. They give conflicting answers to important policy questions, such as whether to rely on cost-effectiveness information to allocate health-related resources. For example, suppose that individuals in group A have a health condition that is slightly less cost-effective to treat than the health condition of individuals in group B. In that case, allocating resources by their cost-effectiveness implies that members of group B gets treated first, and it may be that nobody in group A is treated. Critics maintain that it is unfair not to give members of group A some chance of being treated. Is it? On John Broome’s theory of fairness, it is unfair. According to Eyal, Kirpatrick and Eastwood, Hooker and Henning, the cost-effective allocation may be no less fair than giving members of group A some chance of treatment. Intuitions about similar cases are conflicted. In this talk I will sketch a theory of fairness that defends the cost-effective allocation and that also has implications concerning the moral importance of equality.
Dan Hausman, University of Wisconsin-Madison
January 17, 2020
Visit the Rotman website for more information on applications, events, project descriptions, and openings. rotman.uwo.ca
Follow The Rotman Institute on Twitter: twitter.com/rotmanphilo
Like The Rotman Institute on Facebook: facebook.com/rotmanphilosophy
Subscribe to our channel: youtube.com/user/rotmanphilosophy
There are few theories of fairness in the philosophical literature, and those theories are controversial. They give conflicting answers to important policy questions, such as whether to rely on cost-effectiveness information to allocate health-related resources. For example, suppose that individuals in group A have a health condition that is slightly less cost-effective to treat than the health condition of individuals in group B. In that case, allocating resources by their cost-effectiveness implies that members of group B gets treated first, and it may be that nobody in group A is treated. Critics maintain that it is unfair not to give members of group A some chance of being treated. Is it? On John Broome’s theory of fairness, it is unfair. According to Eyal, Kirpatrick and Eastwood, Hooker and Henning, the cost-effective allocation may be no less fair than giving members of group A some chance of treatment. Intuitions about similar cases are conflicted. In this talk I will sketch a theory of fairness that defends the cost-effective allocation and that also has implications concerning the moral importance of equality.
Dan Hausman, University of Wisconsin-Madison
January 17, 2020
Visit the Rotman website for more information on applications, events, project descriptions, and openings. rotman.uwo.ca
Follow The Rotman Institute on Twitter: twitter.com/rotmanphilo
Like The Rotman Institute on Facebook: facebook.com/rotmanphilosophy
Subscribe to our channel: youtube.com/user/rotmanphilosophy
