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.

| Author: | Shagrel Tygom |
| Country: | Guinea |
| Language: | English (Spanish) |
| Genre: | Automotive |
| Published (Last): | 5 January 2012 |
| Pages: | 229 |
| PDF File Size: | 4.88 Mb |
| ePub File Size: | 17.53 Mb |
| ISBN: | 852-6-56760-354-5 |
| Downloads: | 93019 |
| Price: | Free* [*Free Regsitration Required] |
| Uploader: | Kakus |
I shall explain how a nonconsequentialist can still respect the separateness of persons while counf for aggregation. Finally, I draw upon the redeemable 4 In support of a notion of the separateness of persons, see Nagelshoild. Fortunately, pro-number nonconsequentialists can avoid the Separateness of Persons Objection by rejecting the particular view of separateness of persons that underlies this objection.
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. Yoda has three pills aboard the spaceship that can alleviate the suffering caused by the disintegration of the flesh.
Rethinking how non-consequentialists should count lives
One should not flip a coin, because persons are valuable: Given this, nonconsequentialist may jihn have to shy away from aggregation when numbers are the only relevant factor at issue.
If S does nothing, then no one will be spared from harm. This further remark may spare Taurek from holding the view that persons are incommensurable, but his position may become confused.
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.
Don’t Count on Taurek: Vindicating the Case for the Numbers Counting | Yishai Cohen –
I think there is such a principle. Saving nhmbers, moral theory, and the claims of individuals. Help Center Find new research papers in: So, if PN is false one should prefer i over ivand not vice versa. Using one of these people for the benefit of others, uses him and benefits the others.
Note that I am not arguing that nonconsequentialists are wrong to criticize aggregation from the perspective of the separateness of persons.

In this paper, I argued that pro-number jjohn may be making the tasks more difficult than necessary because on the Standard Picture of nonconsequentialism, a nonconsequentialist can allow aggregation and still respect the separateness of persons.
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.
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. If S does nothing, then neither x nor y will be spared from harm.
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. Or, it might seem that they must embrace aggregation and thereby whole-sale consequentialism.
MODERATORS
There are broadly three positions one might hold regarding what S ought to do in a Taurek Scenario. Individually, we each sometimes choose to undergo some pain or sacrifice for a greater benefit or to avoid a greater harm: Why not, similarly, hold that some persons have to bear some costs that benefit other persons more, for the sake of the overall social good?
At the same time, a numbees in which A survives and B dies seems just as bad as a world in which A dies and B survives. However, the method of Pairwise Comparison also faces the Separateness of Persons Objection, because if persons are incommensurable, then surely one could not perform pairwise comparisons. Submit a new text post. Star Wars is not an instance of a Taurek Scenario. There may be other problems with the Weighted Txurek Argument, but I shall not explore them here.
Users with a history of such comments may be banned.

Should the numbers count? For a perceptive analysis of different versions of the weighted lottery, see Wasserman, D.
The harm that S can prevent for both x and y is serious. But shoulc seems counterintuitive. The chosen Jedi receives one pill. First, there is value in saving the greater number in a Taurek Scenario.
In such a case, we would toss a coin to give each an equal chance. 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.
![]()
