Mass Nouns, Count Nouns and Non-Count Laycock – – In Alex Barber (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Elsevier. A crucial part of Taurek’s argument is his contention that i. John M. Taurek, ” Should the Numbers Count?” Philosophy & Public Affairs 6, no. 4. (Summer I ). Oxford University Press USA publishes scholarly works in all academic disciplines, bibles, music, children’s books, business books, dictionaries, reference.
|Published (Last):||21 June 2011|
|PDF File Size:||10.85 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.93 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
In iv A suffers ojhn degree 10n and Secura does not suffer at all. It could be argued that someone who believes in the separateness of persons would not allow Premise 4, that one can substitute A with B.
Woodward – – Southern Journal of Philosophy 19 4: Equality, Uncertainty and Time: Pro-number nonconsequentialists have been puzzling over how to show that the greater number in a rescue situation should be saved without aggregating the claims of the many, a typical kind of consequentialist move that seems to violate the separateness of persons.
Cont n recent years, many nonconsequentialists such as Frances Kamm and Thomas Scanlon have been puzzling over what has come to be known as the Number Problem, which is how to show that the greater number in a rescue situation should be saved without aggregating the claims of the manya typical kind of consequentialist move that seems to violate the separateness of persons.
John M. Taurek, Should the numbers count? – PhilPapers
Numbers are one consideration that must be taken into account in our moral deliberation. The Distribution of Numbers and the Comprehensiveness of Reasons.
A response that advocates of the Standard Picture could make is to deny that the further quantification of these values into coubt broader consequentialist framework is possible. At the same time, a world in which A survives and B dies seems just as bad as a world in which A dies and B survives. Oxford University Press,numberd discussions of these paradoxes of transitivity.
First, a comparison of the well-being of x with the well-being of y prior to any intervention by S must be taken into account. The Argument from Best Outcome can be represented as follows: However, even many non- consequentialists think that numbers skepticism goes too far in rejecting the claim that you ought to save the greater number. If S does nothing, then neither x nor y will be spared from harm. Saving A is equivalent to saving B.
John M. Taurek: Should the Numbers Count?
Submit a new link. Call this the Broken Finger Objection. If this is too strong, one could state it in a discontinuity form, which would say that if some benefits, A, are too trivial when compared to others benefits, B, then enough of B should outweigh any amount of A. But in just these situations I am inclined to think that even if the choice were Bs he too should prefer that C be spared his loss” Taurek, p.
The harm that S can prevent for x is serious, and the harm that S can prevent for y is not serious. Therefore, PAC would require that we save the individual who stands to lose her life instead of the individual who only stands to lose his finger. Abstract I n recent years, many nonconsequentialists such as Frances Kamm and Thomas Scanlon have been puzzling over what has come to be known as the Number Problem, which is how to show that the greater number in a rescue situation should be saved without aggregating the claims of the manya typical kind of consequentialist move that seems to violate the separateness of persons.
Anthony Skelton – – Journal of Global Ethics 12 2: If Secura is chosen, she receives the two remaining pills. See also Hirose, I. I think there is. Again, that there are five lives versus one is one consideration in this matter. Links behind paywalls or registration walls are not allowed. Posts about well-trod issues e. Google Drive links and link shorteners are not allowed. In such a case, a nonconsequentialist may conclude that intentionally harming an innocent individual is something one should not do, even if this means letting five people die.
Other things being equal, it seems that we should save B instead of A. The harm that S can prevent for x is serious.
So, since Star Wars is not an instance of joyn Taurek Scenario, Numbers Partly Count is silent about whether or not one should prefer iv over i. The Principle of Nonaggregation PN One’s duties to come to the aid of others are determined by the claims of individuals considered one by one rather than by any aggregation of the claims of individuals Otsukap.
The particular view of the separateness of persons that underlies the Separateness of Persons Objection is the view that persons are incommensurable. For a perceptive analysis of different versions of the txurek lottery, see Wasserman, D.
Want to add to the discussion?
Commenting Rules Read the Post Before You Reply Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. Individually, we each sometimes choose to undergo some pain or sacrifice for a greater benefit or to avoid a greater harm: Log in or sign up in seconds.
No keywords specified fix it. Saving people and flipping coins. Aggregation and Two Moral Methods. In each case, some cost is borne for the sake of the greater overall good.
You only have time to go to one of taurk islands to rescue the people on it.
To give just one example, notice how easily one numberx transform this passage into an objection to substituting the equivalent good of one individual for another: There are four persons that are afflicted by a disease that has paralyzed all of their limbs, and they would all benefit from these pills. See also our discussion of philosophy and mental health issues here. Saving the greater number without combining claims.