David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Acta Analytica 25 (3):317-327 (2010)
According to a standard picture, for any two comparable objects and a basis for comparison, either one is greater than the other or they are equal with respect to the basis. This picture has been called the Trichotomy Thesis, and although it is intuitive and plausible, it has been called into question by such philosophers as Derek Parfit, James Griffin, Joseph Raz, and Ruth Chang. Changâs discussion is particularly rich, for she proposes and provides a detailed account of a possible fourth relation that, she argues, provides a satisfying explanation of hard cases of comparison. In this paper, I will examine a version of the main argument against the Trichotomy Thesis and attempt to show that it is unsound
|Keywords||Commensurability Value theory Trichotomy thesis Small improvement argument|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Derek Parfit (1984). Reasons and Persons. Oxford University Press.
Timothy Williamson (2000). Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford University Press.
G. E. Moore (1903). Principia Ethica. Dover Publications.
Ruth Chang (ed.) (1997). Incommensurability, Incomparability and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Henrik Andersson (forthcoming). Parity and Comparability—a Concern Regarding Chang’s Chaining Argument. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice:1-9.
Justin Klocksiem (2011). Moorean Pluralism as a Solution to the Incommensurability Problem. Philosophical Studies 153 (3):335 – 49.
Similar books and articles
Michael Esfeld (2005). Scientific Realism and the History of Science. Philosophy 1:1-15.
David Botting (2010). Three Theses on Acts. Philosophical Explorations 13 (1):65 – 79.
Susanne Sreedhar (2008). Defending the Hobbesian Right of Self-Defense. Political Theory 36 (6):781-802.
Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra (2009). The Disjunction and Conjunction Theses. Mind 118 (470):427-443.
Michael Glanzberg (2004). Quantification and Realism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 69 (3):541–572.
James H. Fetzer (1974). Grünbaum's 'Defense' of the Symmetry Thesis. Philosophical Studies 25 (3):173 - 187.
Alexander P. D. Mourelatos (1978). Events, Processes, and States. Linguistics and Philosophy 2 (3):415 - 434.
Barry Taylor (1977). Tense and Continuity. Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (2):199 - 220.
W. F. W. (1911). Trichotomy in Roman Law Trichotomy in Roman Law. By Henry Goudy, D.C.L., Regius Professor of Civil Law in the Univeristy of Oxford. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910. [REVIEW] The Classical Review 25 (06):185-186.
Ruth Chang (2002). The Possibility of Parity. Ethics 112 (4):659-688.
Added to index2009-11-14
Total downloads28 ( #145,195 of 1,911,616 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #457,720 of 1,911,616 )
How can I increase my downloads?