Why We Should Reject S

In Reasons and Persons. Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press (1984)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

An argument against the bias towards the near; how a defence of temporal neutrality is not a defence of S; an appeal to inconsistency; why we should reject S and accept CP.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,991

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The Appeal to Full Relativity.Derek Parfit - 1984 - In Reasons and Persons. Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.
Five Mistakes in Moral Mathematics.Derek Parfit - 1984 - In Reasons and Persons. Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.
Against Time Bias.Preston Greene & Meghan Sullivan - 2015 - Ethics 125 (4):947-970.
A Reply to S Siddharth’s ‘Against Phenomenal Bonding’.Gregory Miller - 2022 - European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 18 (1):(D1)5-18.
Why Liberal Neutralists Should Accept Educational Neutrality.Matt Sensat Waldren - 2013 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (1):71-83.
Theories That Are Directly Self‐Defeating.Derek Parfit - 1984 - In Reasons and Persons. Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.
How to reject a counterfactual.Vittorio Morato - 2017 - Logique Et Analyse 239:317-335.

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-10-25

Downloads
0

6 months
0

Historical graph of downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Derek Parfit
Last affiliation: Oxford University

Citations of this work

Parthood.Theodore Sider - 2007 - Philosophical Review 116 (1):51-91.
The Neutrality of Life.Andrew Y. Lee - 2023 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 101 (3):685-703.

View all 252 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references