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):||27 July 2014|
|PDF File Size:||3.29 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.93 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
If you have unrelated thoughts or don’t wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. A Simple Solution to the Number Problem. 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.
But a second or third pill would do nothing for them; both legs of each of the three would remain paralyzed no matter what.
If so, then on Jon, it seems that one would be permitted to save either A or B; the only thing one should not do is to do nothing. Otsuka by contrast focuses on the mere mitigation of a harm. Comments which are clearly not yaurek direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Log in or sign up in seconds. Saving lives, moral theory, and the claims of individuals. Deontic cycling and the structure of commonsense morality. The suffering that each volcanologist would endure if not saved is serious. Call this the Standard Picture of nonconsequentialism.
Or, take the classic Transplant Case, in which to save five people from various organ failures, we must intentionally kill tqurek healthy individual and extract his organs.
In this paper, I argued that pro-number nonconsequentialists may be making the tasks more difficult than necessary because on the Standard Picture of nonconsequentialism, a nonconsequentialist can allow aggregation and still respect the separateness of persons. In other words, while there are states of affairs that are bad for different individuals, there are also states of affairs that are bad simpliciter, and it is the states of affairs that are bad simpliciter that can in fact aggregate.
The Significance of Tiny Contributions. From 3, one can substitute A with B.
Rethinking how non-consequentialists should count lives
So, given PN we can abstract away from the numbers and just compare A alone to Susan. These terms are left to be interpreted shoupd a roughly intuitive manner. If equal claims can be interpersonally substituted and divided, why can they not be aggregated?
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. So to keep things simple, don’t.
Commenting Rules Read the Post Before You Reply Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. One might ask, why not? What We Owe to Each Other. Taurek, numbers, and probabilities. The question is which one. Scanlon and the claims of the many versus the one. Why is the former option always preferable? Anarchy, State and Utopia. Sign in Create an account. But, setting aside the fact that some philosophers actually embrace these implications of aggregation, joh suggests that these implications are not obviously wrong, it is not necessary for nonconsequentialists to reject aggregation in order to avoid these implications.
Yoda has shoulv pills aboard the spaceship that can alleviate the suffering caused by the disintegration of the flesh.
Accordingly, here is a taxonomy of the possible actions available to Yoda along with the outcomes of those actions: Log In Sign Up. For any harm that Yoda can prevent for any of the four Jedi, that harm is serious. Unlike much of the dialectic between Taurek and his opponents, we will see that this argument is dialectically effective insofar as it does not employ premises that Taurek explicitly rejects.
Indeed, as I proceed to point out in the main text, other people have also held this view. Hence, numbers play a role in the Standard Picture only as one input among many in the deliberative process of a moral agent.
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. But do the numbers need to fully count in order to escape the charge of inconsistency? Don’t Count on Taurek: If Yoda does nothing, all four Jedi will suffer excruciatingly to degree 10n.
Rather, S should choose to distribute the pills on the basis of a procedure that gives each individual a chance of being aided. Moreover, unlike a sizable portion of the debate between Taurek and his opponents, the Otsuka 2.
These are just the minimum requirements. The well-being of x and y are equal in comparison prior to any intervention by S. Contractualism on saving the many. 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 fewer lives saved. Exceptions are made only for posts about philosophers with substantive content, e.
Don’t Count on Taurek: Vindicating the Case for the Numbers Counting | Yishai Cohen –
According to Otsuka, shokld needs an additional premise — such as the consequentialist premise that one should bring about the best outcome — to get to the conclusion that one should save the greater number. Accordingly, in i A suffers to degree n and Secura suffers to degree 10n.
The possibility of altruism. Henry Laycock – – In Alex Barber ed. As I have already indicated in footnote 5some think so.