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):||24 September 2007|
|PDF File Size:||5.16 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||8.86 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
So, given PN we can abstract away from the numbers and just compare A alone to Susan. Given this, nonconsequentialist may not have to shy away from aggregation when numbers are the only relevant factor at issue.
There is a tsunami and both islands will soon be immersed in water, killing whoever is on the island. As a case in point, while John Sandersp.
If this response is adequate, the Standard Picture is also different from consequentialism of the more sophisticated sort.
All four Jedi are given a one-fourth chance of being chosen. But it seems that pairwise interpersonal comparison, balancing, substitution, and division may also do the same.
Therefore, PAC would require that we save the individual who stands to lose her life instead of the individual who only stands to lose his finger. Skepticism about saving the greater number.
A Separateness of Persons Objection. It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss this point in full, but advocates of the Standard Picture might be able to employ some sort of prioritarian or sufficientarian principle of prioritization, or xount method of reflective equilibrium, none of which is necessarily consequentialist.
Oxford University Press,for discussions of these paradoxes of transitivity. Others might argue that there are other reasons to be concerned about aggregation, even if aggregation is no more disrespectful of the separateness of persons than substitution and the like.
Again, however, if A, B and C are all incommensurable, such a method of pairwise ojhn could not be applicable, as the claims of A, B and C would simply be incommensurable. A theory of justice. 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.
John M. Taurek: Should the Numbers Count?
Here is the way out I suggest for the Numbers Partly Count proponent. However, if Spock were to fall into the lava, Spock would suffer more than Uhura if Uhura were to fall into the lava by a significant degree because Spock is half-Vulcan, and the twurek of Vulcan flesh gives rise to more suffering by a significant degree in comparison to the suffering caused by the burning of human flesh.
Since it seems to be a matter of indifference, in terms of losses to persons, haurek one saves the group or saves the individual [in a Taurek Scenario], one should look to other reasons for making one decision rather than another. The possibility of altruism. All links to either audio or video content require abstracts of the posted material, nnumbers as a comment in the thread. See also Timmermann, “The Individualist Lottery,” op. For, faurek one tosses a coin as Taurek suggests, one need not thereby claim that persons are commensurable and can be substituted or balanced or be given some proportional chance.
Moreover, for any two options available to Yoda, any difference in harm between those two options is such that that difference is significant: All posts must develop and defend a substantive philosophical thesis. But a tue or third pill would do nothing for them; both legs of each of the three would remain paralyzed no matter what. This suggests that the Kamm-Scanlon Argument still involves covertly combining the claims of B and C.
Philosophy and Public Affairs 6 4: 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” Taurek, p. In fact, though not often noted, pro-number nonconsequentialists do have a different view of the separateness of persons. Posts about well-trod issues e. Posts must be about philosophy proper, rather than only tangentially connected to philosophy. Abstracts should make clear what the linked material is about and counnt its thesis is.
Don’t Count on Taurek: Accordingly, in i A suffers to degree n and Secura suffers to degree 10n. At the same time, the Principle of Triviality does not reject aggregation because if the harms were not trivial, then aggregation would still be permitted. Star Wars is not an instance of a Taurek Taurk. They would still be equal claims that are aggregated. I think there is such a principle.
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Scanlon and the claims of the many versus the one. 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 can prevent for Uhura by a significant degree, we need a principle that takes this into account.
Don’t Count on Taurek: Vindicating the Case for the Numbers Counting | Yishai Cohen –
This [numbers] skeptic is also moved by pairwise comparisons of the strength of the claims of each of two individuals. Saving people and flipping coins. Henry Laycock – – In Alex Barber ed. For any harm that Yoda can prevent for any of the four Jedi, that harm is serious. But do the numbers need to fully count in order to escape the charge of inconsistency? The procedure that holds for B given that B was chosen in round 2 likewise holds mutatis mutandis for A and C.
Submit a new text post.