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):||7 August 2011|
|PDF File Size:||1.98 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.9 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Saving A seems equivalent to saving B. So, since Star Wars is not an instance of a Taurek Scenario, Numbers Partly Count is silent about whether or not one should prefer iv over i. Belknap Press,pp. If Secura is chosen, she receives numbres pills. Users with a history of such comments may be banned.
However, the method of Pairwise Comparison also faces the Separateness of Persons Objection, because if persons are incommensurable, then taurfk one could not perform pairwise comparisons. Sanders – – Philosophy and Public Affairs 17 1: Aggregation and Two Moral Methods. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Rethinking how non-consequentialists should count lives
Woodward – – Southern Journal of Philosophy 19 4: Yoda has three pills aboard the spaceship that can alleviate the suffering caused by the disintegration of the flesh. One should not shoyld a coin, because persons are valuable: 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. 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 jonn two limbs restored.
Or, it might seem that they must embrace aggregation and thereby whole-sale consequentialism. Additionally, nothing that I will claim depends upon these notions being non-vague.
John M. Taurek: Should the Numbers Count?
If Yoda does nothing, all four Jedi will suffer excruciatingly taursk degree 10n. Find it on Scholar. Sign in to use this feature.
There may be an easy way out for pro-number nonconsequentialists, namely, non-consequentialists can accept aggregation and still respect the separateness of persons. Because in the former option Yoda can prevent a harm that is more serious by a significant degree in comparison to a harm that Yoda can prevent in the latter option. Why the Numbers Count.
Indeed, as I proceed to point out in the main text, other people have also held this view. Suould the Arbitrariness Objection, it might seem that if they still reject aggregation, then they must also reject pairwise interpersonal comparison, substitution, and the like.
Or, take the classic Transplant Case, in which to save five people from various organ failures, we must intentionally kill a healthy individual and extract his organs. In this paper, I argue that these nonconsequentialists may be making the shiuld more difficult than necessary, because allowing aggregation does not prevent one from being a nonconsequentialist.
To use a person in this way does not sufficiently respect and take account of the fact that he is a separate person, that his is the only life he has. See also Hirose, I.
If one of the other Jedi is chosen, they receive only one pill since the results are the same in comparison the chosen individual only suffers to degree n. Post titles cannot consist only in questions, even if the title of the linked material is a question. Taurej, in i A suffers to degree n and Secura suffers to degree 10n.
Remember me on this computer. Posts must be about philosophy proper, rather than only tangentially connected to philosophy.
In fact, though not often noted, pro-number nonconsequentialists do have a different view of the separateness of persons. Numbers, with and without contractualism. Deontic cycling and the structure of commonsense morality. Skip to main content.