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):||26 July 2010|
|PDF File Size:||1.98 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.71 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
I think there is such a principle. Echoing Rawls’s discussion of this matter, Robert Nozick explains the problem of making a person undergo some sacrifice for some ‘overbalancing’ good: Google Drive links and link shorteners are not allowed.
In iv A suffers to degree 10n and Secura does not suffer at all. As far as I can tell, it will be difficult for pro-number nonconsequentialists to show how pairwise interpersonal comparison, balancing, substitution and division are any more or less respectful of the separateness of persons than aggregation is. It is worth noting that this point further applies to those who might seek to use the method of Pairwise Comparison to defend the opposite claim, that is, the Taurekean claim that numbers do not matter.
Still, advocates of the weighted lottery could just bite the bullet and assert that this is what is required to solve the Number Problem. Posts must be about philosophy proper, rather than only tangentially connected to philosophy.
As I shall shortly argue though, from the perspective of the view that persons ttaurek incommensurable, the method of Pairwise Comparison is itself also problematic. I suggest the following principle: Yoda has three pills aboard the spaceship that can alleviate the suffering caused by the disintegration of the flesh. Suppose A is in danger of breaking his finger and B is in danger of losing her life. Contractualism on saving the many.
While it permits comparison, balancing, substitution and division, it refuses to permit aggregation. This further remark may spare Taurek from holding the view that persons are incommensurable, but his position may become confused.
But a second or third pill would do joyn for them; both legs of each of the taurrek would remain paralyzed no matter what. 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.
There are broadly three positions one might hold regarding what S ought to do in a Taurek Scenario. I’m not quite a fan of this piece because the author spends a great deal dealing with hypotheticals.
“Should the Numbers Count?” by John M. Taurek : philosophy
This article has no associated abstract. The well-being of Spock and Uhura are equal in comparison prior to a possible intervention by Kirk. From the Standard Picture, we have a straightforward solution for the Number Problem.
The Numbers Should Count. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research The procedure that holds for A given that A was chosen in round 1 likewise holds mutatis mutandis for B and C.
Commenting Rules Read the Post Before You Reply Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments suould, and respond to these substantively. Aggregation and two moral methods. For example, to avoid the tge that a large number of small harms can add up to jogn a smaller number of large harms, nonconsequentialists could employ and have employed something like the Principle of Triviality to constrain aggregation without rejecting it.
The following not exhaustive list of items require moderator pre-approval: The well-being of x, y, and z are equal in comparison prior to any intervention by S.
In iv A has no limbs restored and Susan has shoulx arms restored as well as one leg restored. Call this the Standard Picture of nonconsequentialism.
It might be argued that the Weighted Taure, Argument gives the individual in the lesser group too much weight. What we owe to each other. For any harm that Yoda can prevent for any of the four Jedi, that harm is serious.
It should be noted that Taurek goes on to say that “There may well come a point, however, at which the difference between what B stands to lose and C stands to lose is such that I would spare C his loss.
Saving A seems equivalent to saving B. Help Center Find new research papers in: Philosophy and Public Affairs 7: For example, in the Riot Case, although a great number of people would die if we did not prosecute the innocent individual, PAA holds that moral agents — even the ones who might die as a result of our not prosecuting the innocent individual — could recognize that the consideration of justice may be a legitimate moral reason not to prosecute the innocent individual.
However, unlike a consequentialist of the simpler sort at least where the only relevant consideration may be the number of lives at stake, a nonconsequentialist may argue that numbers are not the only relevant consideration; one also needs to consider whether, for example, it is just to prosecute an innocent individual.
Before I proceed, three clarificatory remarks are in order.