Luke Elson University of Reading
Contact

Affiliations
  • Faculty, University of Reading
  • PhD, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 2014.

Areas of specialization
  • None specified

Areas of interest

Edited categories

blank
About me
I'm a lecturer at the University of Reading. My main research is in value incommensurability and vagueness, and the implications of these for metaethics.
My works
3 items found.
Sort by:
  1. Luke Elson (forthcoming). Tenenbaum and Raffaman on Vague Projects, the Self-Torturer, and the Sorites. Ethics.
    Sergio Tenenbaum and Diana Raffman contend that ‘vague projects’ motivate radical revisions to orthodox, utility-maximising rational choice theory. Their argument cannot succeed if such projects merely ground instances of the paradox of the sorites, or heap. Tenenbaum and Raffman are not blind to this, and argue that Warren Quinn’s Puzzle of the Self-Torturer does not rest on the sorites. I argue that their argument both fails to generalise to most vague projects, and is ineffective in the case of the Self-Torturer (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Luke Elson (2014). Borderline Cases and the Collapsing Principle. Utilitas 26 (1):51-60.
    John Broome has argued that value incommensurability is vagueness, by appeal to a controversial about comparative indeterminacy. I offer a new counterexample to the collapsing principle. That principle allows us to derive an outright contradiction from the claim that some object is a borderline case of some predicate. But if there are no borderline cases, then the principle is empty. The collapsing principle is either false or empty.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Luke Elson (2014). Heaps and Chains: Is the Chaining Argument for Parity a Sorites? Ethics 124 (3):557-571.
    I argue that the Ruth Chang’s Chaining Argument for her parity view of value incomparability trades illicitly on the vagueness of the predicate ‘is comparable with’. Chang is alert to this danger and argues that the predicate is not vague, but this defense does not succeed. The Chaining Argument also faces a dilemma. The predicate is either vague or precise. If it is vague, then the argument is most plausibly a sorites. If it is precise, then the argument is either (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
Is this list right?