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):||13 May 2017|
|PDF File Size:||17.26 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.77 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Post titles must describe the philosophical content of the posted material, cannot be unduly provocative or click-baity and cannot be in all caps.
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. Karhu – forthcoming – Analysis: So it is a great advantage of the Otsuka 2. Aggregation and the Separateness of Persons. Finally, I draw upon the redeemable 4 In support of a notion of the separateness of persons, see Nagelp.
A reasonable desiderata for a proposal for what to do in a Taurek Scenario accommodates the following two alleged facts.
Anthony Skelton – – Journal of Global Ethics numbera 2: Nevertheless, given that the difference in potential suffering between Spock and Uhura is significant, it seems clear that Kirk ought to save Spock rather than Uhura make the difference in suffering here as great as you like. There may be an easy way out for pro-number nonconsequentialists, namely, non-consequentialists can accept aggregation and still respect the separateness of persons.
Links behind paywalls or registration walls are not allowed. One might ask, why not? He does not get some overbalancing good from his sacrifice, and no one is entitled to ciunt this upon him. The Argument from Best Outcome can be represented as follows:.
Hence, numbers play a role in the Standard Picture only as one input among many in the deliberative process of a moral agent. Captain Kirk can only save one of the individuals via his Starship Enterprise. 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. Given this, it seems that we can substitute A for B on one side of the equation. According to some of its advocates, the weighted lottery then solves the Number Problem if one accepts that if and when B is selected, then having reached B, one should also save C.
While it permits comparison, balancing, substitution and division, it refuses to permit aggregation.
“Should the Numbers Count?” by John M. Taurek : philosophy
It could be argued that someone who believes in the separateness of persons would mumbers allow Premise 4, that one can substitute A with B. Individually, we each sometimes choose to undergo some pain or sacrifice for an equivalent benefit or to avoid an equivalent harm: In i A, B, and Tye each suffer to degree n.
There are certainly other kinds of chance procedures a Numbers Partly Count proponent might wish to adopt for what Yoda ought to do in the Star Wars scenario, such as to choose whom to aid on suould basis of a slightly different procedure where in round 2 given that A was chosen in round 1 Secura has a smaller chance of being aided given that Secura will receive more of the aid if chosen in comparison to B and C.
Why is the former option always preferable?
Natural Law in Shpuld and Politics. Click here to sign up. The sort of chance jonn in mind is something like the following: If Secura is chosen, she receives two pills. Moreover, Rob Lawlor explicitly defends the view suggested by Sanders. The well-being of x is worse in comparison to the well-being of y to a nontrivial degree prior to any intervention by S. Abstract I n recent years, many nonconsequentialists such as Frances Kamm and Thomas Scanlon have been puzzling over what has come to be known as the Number Problem, which is how to show that tayrek greater number in a rescue situation should be saved without aggregating the claims of the manya typical kind of consequentialist move that seems to violate the separateness of persons.
For example, it might be said that there is just no metric to weigh numbers against considerations of justice. Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. The moral importance of selecting people randomly.
For the purposes of this paper, however, I will mostly focus on the three views sholud above. If B or C is chosen, they receive one pill since the results are the same in comparison the chosen individual only suffers to degree n. If so, and if the Separateness of Persons Objection relies on PAI, then one could also dismiss the objection on this basis.
See GriffinJ. 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. Taurek, Numbers and Probabilities.
The well-being of x and y are equal in comparison prior to any intervention by S. So if the numbers count one should prefer i over ivand not vice versa.
Zach Barnett – – Analysis 78 1: Iwao Hirose – – Utilitas 25 taurk Henry Laycock – – In Alex Barber ed. Preventing a harm for shokld individual would be at little to no cost to S. Saving A seems equivalent to saving B. Otsuka argues against PN and thus against Numbers Skepticism by attempting to demonstrate that PN, in conjunction with an additional moral principle, entails inconsistent choices regarding what ought to be done in certain circumstances, and that this a reason to reject PN and thus reject Numbers Skepticism.
Aggregation and Two Moral Methods. I will call this a Taurek Scenario: But johb seems counterintuitive.