• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Economics & philosophy >TRANSITIVITY AND VAGUENESS
【24h】

TRANSITIVITY AND VAGUENESS

机译：稳定性和可变性

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Axiomatic utility theory plays a foundational role in some accounts of normative principles. In this context, it is sometimes argued that transitivity of "better than" is a logical truth. Larry Temkin and Stuart Rachels use various examples to argue that "better than" is non-transitive, and that transitivity is not a logical truth. These examples typically involve some sort of "discontinuity." In his discussion of one of these examples, John Broome suggests that we should reject the claim which involves "discontinuity." We can, I suggest, make sense of the examples which Temkin uses while sacrificing neither transitivity nor "discontinuity." This response to Temkin's examples involves developing and modifying James Griffin's account of "discontinuity." If the account of "discontinuity" seems implausible, that is because of a failure to allow for vagueness. A similar argument can be made in the context of the well-known "repugnant conclusion."
机译：公理效用理论在规范原则的某些解释中起着基础性的作用。在这种情况下，有时认为“优于”的传递性是一个逻辑真理。拉里·特姆金（Larry Temkin）和斯图尔特·瑞秋（Stuart Rachels）使用各种示例来证明“优于”是不及物的，而和物性不是逻辑上的真理。这些示例通常涉及某种“不连续性”。约翰·布鲁姆（John Broome）在对这些示例之一进行讨论时建议，我们应该拒绝涉及“不连续性”的主张。我建议，我们可以理解Temkin在不牺牲传递性和“不连续性”的情况下使用的示例。对Temkin的示例的这种响应涉及开发和修改James Griffin对“不连续性”的描述。如果说“间断性”的说法似乎难以置信，那是因为没有考虑到模糊性。可以在众所周知的“令人讨厌的结论”的背景下做出类似的论点。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号