Parity and Comparability - a Concern Regarding Chang’s Chaining Argument

According to Ruth Chang the three standard positive value relations: “better than”, “worse than” and “equally good” do not fully exhaust the conceptual space for positive value relations. According to her, there is room for a fourth positive value relation, which she calls “parity”. Her argument for...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Andersson, Henrik (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Springer Science + Business Media B. V [2016]
In: Ethical theory and moral practice
Year: 2016, Volume: 19, Issue: 1, Pages: 245-253
RelBib Classification:NCA Ethics
VB Hermeneutics; Philosophy
Further subjects:B Begging the question
B Comparability
B Value relations
B Chang
B Comparisons
B Trichotomy
B Vagueness
B Parity
Online Access: Volltext (Verlag)
Volltext (doi)

MARC

LEADER 00000caa a22000002 4500
001 1565731441
003 DE-627
005 20191104091624.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 171127s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1007/s10677-015-9621-5  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1565731441 
035 |a (DE-576)495731447 
035 |a (DE-599)BSZ495731447 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Andersson, Henrik  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Parity and Comparability - a Concern Regarding Chang’s Chaining Argument  |c Henrik Andersson 
264 1 |c [2016] 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a According to Ruth Chang the three standard positive value relations: “better than”, “worse than” and “equally good” do not fully exhaust the conceptual space for positive value relations. According to her, there is room for a fourth positive value relation, which she calls “parity”. Her argument for parity comes in three parts. First, she argues that there are items that are not related by the standard three value relations. Second, that these items are not incomparable, and third, that the phenomena she has focused on are not due to the vagueness of the comparative predicates (i.e., that it is indeterminate which of the standard value relations that holds). This paper focuses on the second part of the argument and an objection is presented. By assuming the Small Unidimensional Difference Principle, which is a key premise for the second part of the argument, Chang’s argument could be accused of begging the question. More so, by assuming this principle, the space for incomparability gets severely limited. If these worries are justified, then Chang’s argument for parity as a fourth form of comparability is unsuccessful. 
601 |a Argumentation 
650 4 |a Begging the question 
650 4 |a Chang 
650 4 |a Comparability 
650 4 |a Comparisons 
650 4 |a Parity 
650 4 |a Trichotomy 
650 4 |a Vagueness 
650 4 |a Value relations 
652 |a NCA:VB 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Ethical theory and moral practice  |d Dordrecht [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V, 1998  |g 19(2016), 1, Seite 245-253  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)320527093  |w (DE-600)2015306-5  |w (DE-576)104558555  |x 1572-8447  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:19  |g year:2016  |g number:1  |g pages:245-253 
856 4 0 |u https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10677-015-9621-5  |x Verlag  |3 Volltext 
856 |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-015-9621-5  |x doi  |3 Volltext 
936 u w |d 19  |j 2016  |e 1  |h 245-253 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 2988281335 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1565731441 
LOK |0 005 20191104091624 
LOK |0 008 171127||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixzo 
LOK |0 936ln  |0 144205381X  |a VB 
LOK |0 936ln  |0 1442052465  |a NCA 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw 
REL |a 1 
SUB |a REL