JOHN TAUREK SHOULD THE NUMBERS COUNT PDF
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 October 2006|
|PDF File Size:||1.26 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.54 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Anthony Skelton – – Journal of Global Ethics 12 2: The procedure that holds for B given that B was chosen in round 2 likewise holds mutatis mutandis for A and C. In particular, I shall argue that a nonconsequentialist can permit aggregation and still respect the separateness of persons. Instead, the conclusion is that saving the greater number is better.
One might ask, why not? Please contact the moderators for pre-approval. It might also be pointed out that the fact that the weighted lottery makes it more likely than not — perhaps even overwhelmingly likely — that the greater number will be saved is insufficient to establish that the Weighted Lottery Argument solves the Number Problem, given that the Number Problem is that of explaining why we should always save the greater number in these cases.
Again, that there are five lives versus one is one consideration in this matter. From 3, one can substitute A with B.
Given this, it seems that we can substitute A for B on one side of the equation. Both Mister Spock and Lieutenant Uhura are simultaneously studying distinct volcanoes on plant Nibiru at the request of captain Kirk, and have taueek simultaneously lost their balance, thus beginning to fall downward towards the lava at the center of each volcano. In i A, B, and C each have both arms restored; they are prevented from continuing to endure the same harm.
Accordingly, here is a taxonomy of the possible actions available to Yoda along with the outcomes of those actions: I think there is. But sholud 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. This latter fact could be taken to be true iff PN is true. If so, then on PAI, it seems that one would be permitted to save either A or B; the only thing one should not do is to do nothing.
I cannot give a satisfactory account of the meaning of judgments of this kind Taurektakrek. S can prevent a harm for x the smaller number or prevent a harm for both y and z the greater numberbut S cannot prevent a harm for all individuals.
John M. Taurek: Should the Numbers Count?
Arguably, someone who holds the view that persons are incommensurable could argue that incommensurable values simply numvers be divided and proportioned. Given that the relevant feature of Star Trek is that the harm that Kirk can prevent for Spock is greater than the harm that Kirk coount prevent for Uhura by a significant degree, we need a principle that takes this into account. In other words, might hhe be a way for the Numbers Partly Count proponent to deny that one ought to prefer iv over i in the Star Wars scenario?
So, given PN we can abstract away from the numbers and just compare A alone to Susan. PAA says that what is distinctive about persons is not that they are incommensurable or that they each embody an equal claim that cannot be aggregated but can be substituted, compared and so on; but that they are moral agents capable of deliberating and being persuaded nkmbers moral reasons.
The suffering that each volcanologist would endure if not saved is serious. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
But do the numbers need to fully count in order to escape the charge of inconsistency? Aggregation and the separateness of persons. There is a harm that is more serious to a nontrivial degree being prevented in iv where Susan has three limbs restored in comparison to i in which A has only two limbs restored. Philosophy sshould Public Affairs Log in or sign up in seconds.
One would be required to save the one individual on this approach.
Finally, I draw upon the redeemable 4 In support of a notion of the separateness of persons, see Nagelp. Only an individual who is not balanced out has a complaint. Here is the way out I suggest for the Numbers Partly Count proponent. Jphn Separateness of Persons Objection.
This helps keep discussion in the comments on topic and relevant to the linked material. She may simply choose to save someone.
However, the notion of badness or goodness simpliciter to which Sanders appeals seems to be the very notion that Taurek rejects. Hence she is happy to affirm that if you 6 Though, see e.
The harm that S can prevent for x, y and z is serious. Vindicating the Case for the Numbers Counting. 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.
Moreover, Rob Lawlor explicitly defends the view suggested by Sanders. Captain Kirk can only save one of the individuals via his Starship Enterprise. For a critique of some of these defenses, see Otsuka, Wasserman and StrudlerLiaoand Doggett For, if PN is consistent with the numbers counting, as it very well may be, then there is no reason to think that PN entails such an inconsistency.
I begin by giving an overview of two of the best known pro-number nonconsequentialist solutions: The other three—A, B, and C—only need one pill in order numbera restore both of their arms. Nonconsequentialists who do not want to aggregate the claims of the many, because it seems to violate the separateness of persons — and who, at the same time, do not accept, as Taurek does, that numbers do not matter — have in recent years advanced several novel solutions to the Number Problem.
Those balanced out on his side are, I would say, the beneficiaries of his successful complaint.