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.

Author: Malaramar Tebei
Country: Antigua & Barbuda
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Literature
Published (Last): 28 January 2018
Pages: 41
PDF File Size: 5.33 Mb
ePub File Size: 7.60 Mb
ISBN: 260-2-75804-950-7
Downloads: 35278
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Gunris

Users with a history of such comments may be banned. But regardless, we have seen that there is certainly a viable way out of the inconsistency for the Numbers Partly Count proponent—a kind of numbers skeptic. Who is afraid of numbers?

Hence, to deal with some of the implications of aggregation, arguably nonconsequentialists have resources to constrain taure without rejecting it.

While it permits comparison, numbdrs, substitution and division, it refuses to permit aggregation. To learn more about what is and is not considered philosophy for the purposes of this subreddit, see our FAQ.


In i A, B, and C each have both arms restored; they are prevented from continuing to endure the same harm. Save the greater number because consequentialism aims to produce the best state of affairs and, other things being equal, more aggregate lives saved may be a better state of affairs than shouod lives saved.

Argue your Position Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Otsuka argues against Numbers Skepticism by arguing against PN. I thus propose the following Star Wars scenario: This further remark may spare Taurek from holding the view that persons are incommensurable, but his position may become confused.

John M. Taurek, Should the numbers count? – PhilPapers

I will not, however, be jobn with whether there is a similar true moral principles regarding being the cause of a harm to someone in the colloquial sense of the term. Moreover, for any two options available to Yoda, any difference in harm between those two options is such that that difference is significant: I nhmbers give a satisfactory account numbeds the meaning of judgments of this kind Taurekpp.


Anarchy, state, and utopia. What we coount to each other. Additionally, nothing that I will claim depends upon these notions being non-vague. 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.

See, however, Meyer, K. All three views assume that it is impermissible for S to do nothing: Zach Barnett – – Analysis 78 1: On the other hand, it is still true that all individuals have a chance of being saved, which accommodates the second alleged fact. For example, it might be said that there is just njmbers metric to weigh numbers against considerations of justice.

This helps keep discussion in the comments on topic and relevant to the linked material. Oxford University Press, Henry Laycock – – In Alex Barber ed. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 3: I suggest the following principle: Taurek, Numbers and Probabilities. Comments which blatantly do not contribute to the discussion may be removed, particularly if they consist of personal attacks.

Moreover, unlike a sizable countt of the debate between Taurek and his opponents, the Otsuka 2. The Distribution of Numbers and the Comprehensiveness of Reasons.

First, many in this debate have focused on the complete prevention of a harm in a Taurek Scenario. In particular, I shall argue that a nonconsequentialist can permit aggregation and still respect the separateness of persons.


More specifically, I think that a reason for adopting Numbers Partly Count can similarly favor a different principle that suggests a similar procedure for choosing what to do in certain non-Taurek Scenarios, such as Star Wars. Taurek, nohn, and probabilities. All posts thf be in English. Enter the email address you signed up with and we’ll email you a reset link.

I thank an anonymous referee for prompting me to pursue this line of inquiry. While there may be cases where it is indeterminate that, e. How to be numbrrs without saving the greater number. However, consider the Argument from Best Outcome, the reasoning process of which is similar to the Kamm-Scanlon Argument.

However, I shall argue that their alternative view of separateness of persons, which refuses to jonh aggregation, faces the problem of arbitrariness. As such, unlike consequentialism, numbers are not the only thing that matters on the Standard Picture.

So, since Star Wars is not an instance of a Taurek Scenario, Numbers Partly Count is silent about whether or not one should prefer iv over i. Captain Kirk can only save one of the individuals via his Starship Enterprise. The possibility of altruism. One would be required to save the one individual on this approach. In other words, it is permissible to give each group an equal chance of being saved, irrespective of the johh in size between the groups. Encouraging other users to commit suicide, tthe in the abstract, is strictly forbidden.