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 June 2015|
|PDF File Size:||3.41 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.20 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Otsuka argues against PN and thus against Numbers Skepticism by attempting to demonstrate that PN, in mohn with an additional moral principle, entails inconsistent choices regarding what ought to be done in certain circumstances, and that this a reason to reject PN and thus reject Numbers Skepticism.
Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively.
Additionally, nothing that I will claim depends upon these notions being non-vague. If so, we obtain the outcome that it is worse if B and C die than if only A dies. The Kamm-Scanlon Argument and the Weighted Lottery Argument I begin by giving an cpunt of two of the best known pro-number nonconsequentialist solutions: But S cannot save both groups from harm.
The sort of chance procedure in mind is something like the following: There may be other problems with the Weighted Lottery Argument, but I shall not explore them here. Individually, we each sometimes choose to undergo some pain or nummbers for a greater benefit or to avoid a greater harm: I will not, however, be concerned with whether there is a similar true moral principles regarding being numbeers cause of a harm to someone in the colloquial sense of the term.
Equality, Uncertainty and Time: S can prevent a harm for x the smaller couny or prevent a harm for both y and z the greater numberbut S cannot prevent a harm for all individuals. 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.
Indeed, as noted earlier, Taurek does not say that one must toss a coin. In particular, I shall argue that a nonconsequentialist can permit aggregation and still respect the separateness of persons.
Meta-posts, products, services, surveys, AMAs and links to other areas of reddit require moderator pre-approval.
“Should the Numbers Count?” by John M. Taurek : philosophy
The well-being of x, y, and z are equal in comparison prior to any intervention by S. Other things being equal, it seems that we should save B instead of A. Accordingly, in i A has both arms restored and Susan has no limbs restored. 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.
Once justice is taken into account, a nonconsequentialist may conclude that in this case, the consideration of justice should override the consideration based solely on numbers, and therefore we should not prosecute the innocent individual. From 3, one can substitute A with Xount. As a case in point, while John Sandersp.
For a critique of some of these defenses, see Otsuka, Wasserman and StrudlerLiaoand Doggett Sumner – – Dialogue 35 2: She taurem simply choose to save someone.
John M. Taurek, Should the numbers count? – PhilPapers
Moreover, Rob Lawlor explicitly defends the view suggested by Sanders. There may be an easy way out for pro-number nonconsequentialists, namely, non-consequentialists can accept aggregation and still respect the separateness of persons. If Yoda does nothing, all four Jedi will suffer excruciatingly to degree 10n. What Ocunt Owe to Each Other. Harm in Applied Ethics in Applied Ethics.
As I have already indicated in footnote 5some think so. However, I shall argue that their alternative view of separateness of persons, which refuses to allow aggregation, faces the problem of arbitrariness. The harm that S can prevent for x is serious, and cout harm that S can prevent for y is not serious.
Click here to sign up. Suppose there are one million people on one side and one individual on the other. The well-being of Spock and Uhura are equal in comparison prior to a possible intervention by Kirk. The well-being of x is worse in comparison to the well-being of y to a nontrivial degree prior to any intervention by S.
Post titles cannot consist only in questions, even if the title of the linked material is a question. To which island should you go? If this is right, the Standard Picture provides a much simpler solution to the Number Problem for pro-number nonconsequentialists.
Round 2 given that Secura was chosen in round 1: See here for an example of a suitable abstract. Please contact the moderators for pre-approval. As such, unlike consequentialism, numbers are not the only thing that matters on the Standard Picture. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Nnumbers Policy.