April 23, 2019

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: Meziran JoJogal
Country: Saint Kitts and Nevis
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Medical
Published (Last): 17 February 2010
Pages: 27
PDF File Size: 14.27 Mb
ePub File Size: 18.70 Mb
ISBN: 677-3-64902-803-3
Downloads: 59149
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Vuzahn

Philosophy and Public Affairs In iv A has no limbs restored and Susan bumbers both arms restored as well as one leg restored. See also Hirose, I.


Enter the email address you signed up with and we’ll email you a reset link. This helps keep discussion in the comments on topic and relevant to the linked material. They would still be equal couny that are aggregated.

Suppose A is in danger of breaking his finger and B is in danger of losing her life. The harm that S can prevent for x is serious, and the harm that S can prevent for y is not serious.

Given this, it seems that we can substitute A for B on one side of the equation. The Argument from Best Outcome can be represented as follows:. Round 2 given that Secura was chosen in round 1: Jkhn, setting aside the fact that some philosophers actually embrace these implications of aggregation, which suggests that these implications are not obviously wrong, it is not necessary for nonconsequentialists to reject aggregation in order to avoid these implications.

Related Articles  ASUS P5RD1-VM MANUAL PDF

One should not flip a coin, because persons are valuable: The numbers skeptic should also prefer iv over i.

I think there is such a principle. Finally, I draw upon the redeemable 4 In support of a notion of the separateness of persons, see Nagelp.

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. See, however, Meyer, K. What we owe to each other. Natural Law in Jurisprudence and Politics.

Numbers Skepticism Numbers Fully Count is false. 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 the 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.

Should the numbers count?

Cambridge University Press,pp. The harm that S can prevent for x is serious. A theory of justice. The procedure that holds for B given that B was chosen in round 2 likewise holds mutatis mutandis for A and C.


She may simply choose to save someone.

John M. Taurek: Should the Numbers Count?

However, consider the Argument from Best Outcome, the reasoning process of which is similar to the Kamm-Scanlon Argument. Want to add to the discussion?

Inductive Inference and the Acquisition of Number Concepts. The Argument from Best Outcome can be represented as follows: If Secura is chosen, she receives two pills.

Michael Otsuka has suggested though that Taurek can reject this line of thought by drawing a distinction between pairwise comparisons which do not involve any appeal to groups and those comparisons that involve appeals to groups. If this is right, the Standard Picture provides a much simpler solution to the Number Problem for pro-number nonconsequentialists.

Numbers, with and without contractualism. I will assume henceforth that any true moral principle with respect to the complete prevention of a harm in a Taurek Scenario is likewise true, mutatis mutandis, with respect to the mitigation of a harm in a Taurek Scenario.

So, if PN is false one should prefer i over ivand not vice versa.