In defence of “hard” offers: A reply to J.p. Day

Philosophia 20 (3):325-327 (1990)
Abstract
In commenting on our earlier article in IPhilosophiaD, J P Day raises four issues: those concerning (1) the correct interpretation of the concept of "conditional offers," (2) the relationship of hard conditional offers to liberty, (3) the role of preferences in distinguishing offers from threats, and (4) the moral wrongness of some forms of offering. Two of these points, the second and the third, give rise to some further argument
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF02382100
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 29,520
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Dorothy Day's Christian Conversion.June O'Connor - 1990 - Journal of Religious Ethics 18 (1):159 - 180.
The Validity of Psychotherapy.B. A. Farrell - 1972 - Inquiry : An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 15 (1-4):146 – 170.
Reply to Crisp.Michael Otsuka & Alex Voorhoeve - 2011 - Utilitas 23 (1):109-114.
Defeasible a Priori Justification: A Reply to Thurow.Albert Casullo - 2008 - Philosophical Quarterly 58 (231):336–343.
The Soft-Line Solution to Pereboom's Four-Case Argument.Kristin Mickelson - 2010 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (4):595-617.
Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
16 ( #303,235 of 2,180,853 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #300,627 of 2,180,853 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums