Skip to main content
Log in

The parti-resultantness of requirement: An explanation that failed

  • Published:
Philosophical Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Conclusion

It appears that some relations may happen to be both defeasible and parti-resultant, relative to certain interesting reference classes. Confirmation is one of them, but, under several of the best available reconstructions of parti-resultantness, requirement is not. Moreover, parti-resultantness is not necessary for being defeasible, nor sufficient to assure it. So the conjecture by Ross and Chisholm that having the former property explains having the latter, especially where duty and requirement are concerned, turns out to be mistaken. It is probably only the persistent and deep-running ambiguity of parti-resultantness itself (uncovered above) that made the prospect of using it to account for defeasibility seem plausible.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Girill, T.R., Levenbook, B.B. The parti-resultantness of requirement: An explanation that failed. Philos Stud 37, 237–249 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00372445

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00372445

Keywords

Navigation