{"id":4031,"date":"2025-03-11T12:57:30","date_gmt":"2025-03-11T12:57:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.manchester.ac.uk\/mancept\/?page_id=4031"},"modified":"2025-09-02T10:30:55","modified_gmt":"2025-09-02T09:30:55","slug":"partial-aggregation","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/sites.manchester.ac.uk\/mancept\/mancept-workshops\/list-of-panels-a-z-2025\/partial-aggregation\/","title":{"rendered":"Partial Aggregation: Foundations, Concepts, and Mechanisms"},"content":{"rendered":"

[et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” fullwidth=”on” _builder_version=”3.0.47″ next_background_color=”#000000″ global_module=”322″][et_pb_fullwidth_menu global_parent=”322″ menu_id=”8″ submenu_direction=”downwards” fullwidth_menu=”off” module_class=”main-navigation” _builder_version=”3.17.6″ background_layout=”dark” \/][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ module_class=”header-image-section” _builder_version=”3.0.74″ custom_padding=”0px||0px|” custom_css_main_element=”padding-top:0px” transparent_background=”off” prev_background_color=”#000000″ next_background_color=”#000000″][et_pb_row custom_padding=”||0px|” custom_margin=”||0px|” parallax_method_1=”off” module_class=”header-image” _builder_version=”3.0.47″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/sites.manchester.ac.uk\/mancept\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/257\/2022\/02\/Oxford-Roadcrop.jpg” show_bottom_space=”off” _builder_version=”3.17.6″ border_color_all=”#ffffff” custom_margin=”0px|||” animation_direction=”left” use_border_color=”off” \/][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.0.74″ custom_padding=”||0px|” transparent_background=”off” prev_background_color=”#000000″ next_background_color=”#1d1d1d”][et_pb_row custom_padding=”||0px|” custom_margin=”||0px|” parallax_method_1=”off” module_class=”breadcrumbs-row” _builder_version=”3.0.47″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Breadcrumbs (do not remove)” module_class=”breadcrumbs” _builder_version=”3.17.6″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” module_alignment=”left” custom_css_main_element=”border-bottom: 1px solid #ececed;” use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid”]<\/p>\nMANCEPT<\/a><\/span><\/span>\n

[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.17.6″]<\/p>\n

Partial Aggregation: Foundations, Concepts, and Mechanisms<\/h1>\n

Room – Roscoe 3.5<\/em><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

Lea Bourguignon (LSE); Jonas Harney (TU Dortmund); Milan Mosse\u0301 (UC Berkeley)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Many believe that we ought to save many people from full-body paralysis rather than save a single life, but that it would be wrong to prevent countless headaches rather than saving a single person\u2019s life. Those judgments are in tension. The first favours an aggregative moral ideal<\/em>, according to which burdens can be added up in moral reasoning, so that they together outweigh a more severe burden. The second favours an anti-aggregative moral ideal<\/em>, on which sufficiently large burdens retain priority over any number of smaller burdens. Theories of partial<\/em> (or limited<\/em>) aggregation<\/em> aspire to reconcile these judgements in a principled way. Their broader interest lies in the prospect of settling long-standing debates in ethical theory, for example between contractualists and consequentialists, regarding when and why the numbers should count.<\/p>\n

While early work in partial aggregation arrived at conclusions regarding whom to save by forming and breaking ties among individuals\u2019 claims to be saved (Kamm 1993, Scanlon 1998), recent theories have developed restrictions on how different kinds of claims can inform such conclusions, depending on their relevance to each other and to the decision at hand (Voorhoeve 2014, Tadros 2019, van Gils & Tomlin 2020, R\u00fcger 2020, Steuwer 2021, Hart 2022, Mann 2022, Zhang 2024). The literature has just begun to explore the range of cases that a theory of partial aggregation would need to address, for example those involving heterogeneous groups (Tomlin 2017, Horton 2018, Tadros 2019, van Gils & Tomlin 2020), multiple options (Mann 2022), non-fixed populations (Harney & Khawaja 2023), quasi-competition (Tomlin 2017, Mann 2021), and risk (Horton 2017 & 2020, Lazar 2018, Walen 2020, Francis 2024). Meanwhile, it remains an open question whether partial aggregation is compatible with individualist moral theories like contractualism (Scanlon 1998, Zhang 2024), or whether instead such theories lead to skepticism about moral aggregation of any kind (Taurek 1977, Otsuka 2000, Munoz-Dard\u00e9 2005, Mu\u00f1oz 2024). Indeed, some have suggested that the difficulties attached to partial aggregation motivate full-blown moral aggregation, with practically no restrictions at all (Parfit 2011, Halstead 2016, Horton 2018).<\/p>\n

The proliferation of recent work on partial aggregation suggests a number of pressing open questions, including the following:<\/p>\n