Taurekian Anti-Aggregationist Axiology: A New Interpretation, Elaboration, and Defense

Wanja Amandus Thielmann

University of Hamburg

In his 1977 paper, “Should the Numbers Count?”, John Taurek suggests that, when one is faced with the decision to either save one person from dying or save five persons from dying, the moral thing to do is not to default to the larger number of beneficiaries (5) but to flip a coin so as to give each of the 6 potential benefciaries an equal chance at survival (50%). Taurek’s position is widely considered to be extremely eccentric and counterintuitive. I will argue that this judgement is undeserved.

I develop my own interpretation and presentation of the view while discussing how Parfit’s (1978) critique misrepresents Taurek’s reasoning: First, the difference between intra-personal and inter-personal aggregation is crucial. Second, Taurek is serious about the claim that there is no legitimate basis for the judgement that the outcome of 5 deaths is worse than the outcome of 1 death. Third, the recommendation for the agent is not derived from everybody’s prerogative to save oneself rather than 5 strangers, but from the just mentioned axiological equivalence of outcomes.

Next, I shall try to show why, at least among empathy-focussed moral sentimentalists who reject both consequentialism (Hurley 2017) and consequentializing (Muñoz 2021), this anti-aggerationism should be the default view rather than an outlier. The upshot is that a state of affairs can’t be good or bad simpliciter, but may be good or bad from the point of view of a subject of experience. While the evil of dying is bad for the person who dies, there is nobody the agent can save from an evil 5 times as bad as dying.

Finally, I address the standard objection that one cannot deny that the numbers count when they are very large. I’ll play with the idea that Taurekians should say that the reasons to save large groups rather than single individuals stem from empathy not with those whose life is in danger, but with those who would have to live on after losing a significant part of their societal environment.

Chair: Felix Danowski

Time: September 7th, 11:20-11:50

Location: SR 1.005


Posted

in

by