In cases like Taurek's 'Should the Numbers Count?', contractualism forbids simple aggregation while rule consequentialism may permit it, revealing that surface verdicts mask deep structural divergence.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

'Should the Numbers Count?'(as a specific philosophical paper being analyzed): The title of Taurek's famous article that asks whether saving five people should automatically be better than saving one person just because five is more than one.
Simple aggregation(as a method contractualism rejects): The idea that when deciding between options, you just add up the total benefits and pick whatever gives the most total good, without considering anything else.
Structural divergence(as describing underlying differences between ethical frameworks): Deep, fundamental differences in how two theories are built or how they reason about problems, even if they sometimes reach the same conclusion.
Surface verdicts(as contrasted with deeper structural differences): The obvious conclusions or answers that two theories might seem to agree on when you look at them casually.

Based on where you are in your exploration