Abstract
Philip Pettit has argued that the goods of attachment, virtue, and respect are robust goods in the sense that they require both the actual provision of certain benefits and the modally robust provision of these benefits. He also claims that we value the robustness of these goods because it diminishes our vulnerability to others. I question whether robustness really reduces vulnerability and argue that even if it does, vulnerability reduction is not the reason we value robustness. In place of Pettit’s account, I defend a promotional account of the value of robustness. I argue that we value robustness because it increases the probability we will enjoy a certain kind of benefit.
Acknowledgements
Parts of this paper were presented at the University of St. Gallen. I thank those present for their comments. I also thank Vuko Andrić, Susanne Burri, Sebastian Köhler, and Philip Pettit for helpful suggestions.
References
Lewis, D. (1997). ‘Finkish Dispositions’, The Philosophical Quarterly 47: 143–58.10.1111/1467-9213.00052Search in Google Scholar
Manley, D. and Wasserman, R. (2008). ‘On Linking Dispositions and Conditionals’, Mind 117: 59–84.10.1093/mind/fzn003Search in Google Scholar
Pettit, P. (1997). Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Search in Google Scholar
Pettit, P. (2015). The Robust Demands of the Good (Oxford: Oxford University Press).10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198732600.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Satz, D. (2010). Why Some Things Should Not be For Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets (Oxford: Oxford University Press).10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311594.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
