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 March 2016|
|PDF File Size:||12.9 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||17.75 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Here is the way out I suggest for the Numbers Partly Count proponent. A Simple Solution to the Number Problem At this point, pro-number nonconsequentialists might believe that they are in a dilemma: Death and Whom to Save from It.
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. All four Jedi are given a shouls chance of being chosen. Round 3 given that A was chosen in round 1, and B was chosen in round 2: A, B and C are each given a one-third chance numbes being chosen.
Call this the Standard Picture of nonconsequentialism. Oxford University Press, Vindicating the Case for the Numbers Counting. All links to either audio or video content require abstracts of the posted material, posted as a comment in the thread. Links behind paywalls or registration walls are not allowed. Otsuka argues against Numbers Skepticism by arguing against PN.
Henry Laycock – – In Alex Barber ed. The procedure that holds for B given that B was chosen in round 2 likewise holds mutatis mutandis for A and C.
On the other hand, it is still true that all individuals have a chance of being saved, which accommodates the second alleged fact. Cambridge University Press,pp. Otsuka argues that numbers skepticism, in conjunction with an independently plausible moral principle, leads to inconsistent choices regarding what ought to be done in certain circumstances. This argument seems then to show that the Kamm-Scanlon Argument need not involve combining claims; it only requires the condition of Pareto Optimality, which is not an aggregative condition.
Belknap Press,pp. Added to PP index Total downloads 3, of 2, Recent downloads 6 months 22 20, of 2, How can I increase my downloads? Anarchy, state, and utopia. Sanders takes the loss of a person to be bad simpliciter—not just bad for that person—such that this badness simpliciter is aggregative.
So, if PN is false one should prefer i over ivand not vice versa.
“Should the Numbers Count?” by John M. Taurek : philosophy
This helps keep discussion in the comments on topic and relevant to the linked material. Why the Numbers Count. A theory of justice.
The procedure that holds for A given that A was chosen in round 1 likewise holds mutatis mutandis for B and C. So, the general principle which the Numbers Partly Count proponent could further endorse is the following one which renders the verdict that, instead of selecting option iYoda ought to give all four Jedi a chance of being aided: For any harm that Yoda can prevent for any of the four Jedi, that harm is serious.
For example, it has been said that aggregation could lead to a large number of small harms adding up to outweigh a smaller number of large harms, or to the repugnant conclusion. As a result, Meyer claims that the numbers skeptic should not prefer any of options i — iv over another.
Click here to sign up. So, an example of the kind of conference of a benefit with which I will not be concerned in this paper involves providing a salary-increase to one who is already financially well-off. Instead, one could merely be making a decision to save someone, given that everyone is incommensurable, so that saving none at all is the only thing one should not do. Indeed, if A and B are both incommensurable, one could not compare the claim of one with the claim of the other, as the two claims would simply be incommensurable.
Welcome to Reddit, the front page of the internet. Submit a new link. Using one of these people for the benefit of another, uses him and benefits the other.
Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 3: Philosophy and Public Affairs 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. Numbers skepticism has been partly motivated by the anti-consequentialist thought that the goods, harms and well-being numberd individual people do not aggregate in any morally significant way.
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 coknt greater number. In this paper, I shall argue that pro-number nonconsequentialists may be making the task more difficult than necessary and that there may be a simpler nonconsequentialist solution to the Number Problem. The reason Taurek says that he cannot make sense of it being a worse option to save the few rather than the taurdk is because such an option would jlhn to be worse simpliciter, or worse from an impersonal perspective—a perspective which Taurek does not accept.
Before I proceed, three clarificatory remarks are in order. Rather, what Otsuka needs to 8 Meyerpp. There is a tsunami and both islands will soon be immersed in water, killing whoever is on the island.
Aggregation and two moral methods.