Abstract: John M. Taurek argues that, in a choice between saving the many or the few, the numbers should not count. Many of Taurek's detractors object that his view clashes with the transitivity of ‘better than’; others say the clash can be avoided. I survey the debate and stake out a middle ground: Taurek's view does deeply clash with transitivity, but he isn't doomed if he can defend suitable conception of value. I conclude by formalizing and exploring two conceptions: one context-sensitive (known to ethicists as the 'essentially comparative view'), the other multidimensional (based on what economists call the 'Pareto extension rule').