David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 153 (3):335 – 49 (2011)
Several prominent ethical philosophers have attempted to demonstrate that there exist instances or types of value that are of crucial moral significance but which cannot legitimately be compared with one another. Bernard Williams and Michael Stocker, for example, argue that it can sometimes be rational to regret having chosen the all-things-considered better of two alternatives, and that this sense of regret entails that the goodness of the worse option is not made up for by and is therefore incommensurable with that of the better. Joseph Raz and others have made similar points. In this paper, I propose a theory of value that is monistic in that it countenances just one sort of morally crucial value, but pluralistic in that several distinct properties bearer this value. I then explain how this view avoids incommensurable values without doing violence to the core intuitions that seemed to necessitate them, and how it fits into a larger conception of morality, right conduct, and moral psychology.
|Keywords||Incommensurability Value Pluralism Kekes Raz Stocker Moore|
|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
Martha Craven Nussbaum (2001). The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
Joseph Raz (1986). The Morality of Freedom. Oxford University Press.
R. M. Hare (1981). Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method, and Point. Oxford University Press.
G. E. Moore (1903/2004). Principia Ethica. Dover Publications.
Citations of this work BETA
Miles Tucker (forthcoming). Two Kinds of Value Pluralism. Utilitas:1-14.
S. Seth Bordner (forthcoming). ‘All-Things-Considered,’ ‘Better-Than,’ And Sports Rankings. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport:1-18.
Similar books and articles
Jeremy Randel Koons (2001). Emotions and Incommensurable Moral Concepts. Philosophy 76 (4):585-604.
Chrisoula Andreou (2005). Incommensurable Alternatives and Rational Choice. Ratio 18 (3):249–261.
Joaquín Jareño Alarcón (2006). Value Pluralism and Valuable Pluralism. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 9:91-95.
John N. Williams (2013). The Completeness of the Pragmatic Solution to Moore's Paradox in Belief: A Reply to Chan. Synthese 190 (12):2457-2476.
Timothy Chan (2010). Moore's Paradox is Not Just Another Pragmatic Paradox. Synthese 173 (3):211 - 229.
John Gray (1998). Where Pluralists and Liberals Part Company. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 6 (1):17 – 36.
Krista Lawlor & John Perry (2008). Moore's Paradox. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 86 (3):421 – 427.
Chris Kelly (2008). The Impossibility of Incommensurable Values. Philosophical Studies 137 (3):369 - 382.
Mark A. Wrathall (1999). Practical Incommensurability and the Phenomenological Basis of Robust Realism. Inquiry 42 (1):79 – 88.
Harold I. Brown (1983). Incommensurability. Inquiry 26 (1):3 – 29.
Added to index2010-02-06
Total downloads41 ( #96,677 of 1,790,308 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #123,390 of 1,790,308 )
How can I increase my downloads?