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):||15 February 2013|
|PDF File Size:||16.75 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||19.95 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
However, I shall argue shou,d their alternative view of separateness of persons, which refuses to allow aggregation, faces the problem of arbitrariness. See also Timmermann, “The Individualist Lottery,” op. Michael Otsuka has suggested though that Taurek can reject this line of thought by drawing a distinction between pairwise comparisons which do not involve any appeal to groups and those comparisons that involve appeals to groups. If there were no other relevant considerations, then numbers would determine what one ought to do.
If you have unrelated thoughts or don’t wish jojn read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting.
Google Drive links numbere link shorteners are not allowed. Indeed, as I proceed to point out in the main text, other people have also held this view. Using a balancing scale metaphor, Otsuka notes that the Kamm-Scanlon Argument requires that one first place A on one of the scales and B on the other scale, at which point the scales balance evenly.
This means that even if aggregation presupposes a notion of an overall good, and aggregation is taken into consideration in our number deliberation, since individual moral agents remain the sources of normativity on PAA, the employment of aggregation must ultimately be justifiable to each moral agent from her point of view.
Or, take the classic Transplant Case, in which to save five people from various organ failures, we must intentionally kill a healthy individual and extract his organs. There may be other problems with the Weighted Lottery Argument, but I shall not explore them here. First, there is value in saving the greater number in a Taurek Scenario.
John M. Taurek: Should the Numbers Count?
So, given PN we can abstract away from the numbers and just compare A alone to Secura. No keywords specified fix it. Harm in Applied Ethics in Applied Ethics.
A nonconsequentialist need not deny that the number of people who will die may be one consideration in determining what one ought to do. Welcome to Reddit, the front page of the internet.
Vindicating the Case for the Numbers Counting. So it is a great advantage tqurek the Otsuka 2. The harm that S can prevent for x the smaller number is significantly greater in comparison to the harm that S can prevent both for y and for z the greater number.
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. Encouraging other users to commit suicide, even in the abstract, is strictly forbidden.
In particular, one should consider loss of persons. Considers a scenario in which subject S has three pills and must decide to whom to give them. So if the numbers count one should prefer i over ivand not vice versa. For a perceptive analysis of different versions of the weighted lottery, see Wasserman, D.
“Should the Numbers Count?” by John M. Taurek : philosophy
Contractualism on saving the many. Additionally, nothing that I will claim depends upon these notions being non-vague. They would still be equal claims that are aggregated. 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” Taurrk, p. Instead, the conclusion is that saving the greater number is better.
Note that I am not arguing that nonconsequentialists are wrong to criticize aggregation from the perspective of the separateness of persons. Many nonconsequentialists 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 many, a typical kind of consequentialist move that seems to violate the separateness of persons.
Taurek, numbers, and probabilities. I will thus switch between these two notions accordingly. This said, let me express some reservations regarding this interpretation of Taurek. When we compare options i and ivthe harm that Yoda can prevent for each member of each group is not equal in comparison. 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.
Rather, I am claiming that from this perspective, it is hard to see why substitution and the like would be permitted, but not aggregation.