Abstract

In this article, I defend Frances Kamm’s inviolability account against a powerful objection referred to as the saveability objection. The inviolability account aims to justify deontological constraints (that prohibit us from harming innocent people even to minimise instances of the same type of harm overall) by referring to the idea that constraints hold us to be more inviolable and hence more important beings than we would otherwise be. The saveability objection says that we would seem to be at least equally important if it was permissible to harm innocent people to save us in greater numbers. We would be less inviolable but more saveable. I argue that, despite looking initially forceful, the saveability objection fails to establish that we would have greater saveability without constraints because there is a sense in which the absence of constraints would not only make us less inviolable but also less saveable.