Skip to main content
Log in

The impossibility of incommensurable values

  • Published:
Philosophical Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many recent attacks on consequentialism and several defenses of pluralism have relied on arguments for the incommensurability of value. Such arguments have, generally, turned on empirical appeals to aspects of our everyday experience of value conflict. My intention, largely, is to bypass these arguments and turn instead to a discussion of the conceptual apparatus needed to make the claim that values are incommensurable. After delineating what it would mean for values to be incommensurable, I give an a priori argument that such is impossible. It is widely accepted that value is conceptually tied to desire. I argue that, more specifically, it is proportional to merited desire strength. This connection gives one a metric of all value if there is any such thing. This metric entails that value is a complete ordering over all states of affairs, or, in other words, that value is commensurable.

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

References

  • Anderson, E. (1993). Value in ethics and economics. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Author. (2004). Author’s Book (manuscript)

  • Broad, C. D. (1967). Five types of ethical theory. London: Routledge & K. Paul

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, R. (1997). Incommensurability, incomparability, and practical reason. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Chisholm, R. (1986). Brentano and intrinsic value. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewing, A. C. (1966). The definition of the good. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul LTD

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurka T. (1996). Monism, pluralism, and rational regret Ethics . Ap 106(3), 555–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kekes, J. (1993). The morality of pluralism. Princeton: Princeton University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemos, N. M. (1994). Intrinsic value: Concept and warrant. Cambridge: Cambridge University of Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. C. (1990). Love’s knowledge: Essays on philosophy and literature. New York: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. C. (2001). The fragility of goodness: Luck and ethics in greek tragedy and philosophy. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Oddie, G. (2003). Value, Reality, and Desire (forthcoming).

  • Osborne, H. (1933). The Philosophy of Value.

  • Raz, J. (1986). The morality of freedom. Oxford [Oxfordshire] New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Raz, J. (1999). Engaging reason: On the theory of value and action. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, W. D. (1939). The foundations of ethics. Oxford: The Clarendon Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaber, P. (1999). Value pluralism: Some problems. The Journal of Value Inquiry 33, 71–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stocker, M. (1990). Plural and conflicting values. Oxford [England] New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B.A.O. (1973). Problems of the self; philosophical papers 1956–1972. Cambridge [Eng.]: Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chris Kelly.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kelly, C. The impossibility of incommensurable values. Philos Stud 137, 369–382 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-006-0005-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-006-0005-5

Keywords

Navigation