Accessibility navigation


Heaps and Chains: Is the Chaining Argument for parity a sorites?

Elson, L. (2014) Heaps and Chains: Is the Chaining Argument for parity a sorites? Ethics, 124 (3). pp. 557-571. ISSN 00141704

[img]
Preview
Text - Published Version
· Please see our End User Agreement before downloading.

208kB

It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

To link to this item DOI: 10.1086/674844

Abstract/Summary

I argue that the Ruth Chang’s Chaining Argument for her parity view of value incomparability trades illicitly on the vagueness of the predicate ‘is comparable with’. Chang is alert to this danger and argues that the predicate is not vague, but this defense does not succeed. The Chaining Argument also faces a dilemma. The predicate is either vague or precise. If it is vague, then the argument is most plausibly a sorites. If it is precise, then the argument is either question begging or dialectically ineffective. I argue that no chaining-type argument can succeed.

Item Type:Article
Refereed:Yes
Divisions:No Reading authors. Back catalogue items
Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Science > School of Humanities > Philosophy
ID Code:39559
Publisher:The University of Chicago Press

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Page navigation