A New Account of Thick Concepts

Payne, Andrew

doi:10.1007/s10790-006-0114-6

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The concept of patient participation is both descriptive and loaded with certain values; principally, patient participation has a positive connotation, indicating that the individual is engaged in health‐related aspects. From a semantic perspective, patient participation signifies a more general “sharing” as well as “being engaged” or, more specifically, “being engaged in the decision‐making process.” With such diversity in mind, variations are justifiable, although a lack of mutual understanding of patient participation can produce conflicts …”

Section: The Concept Of Patient Participationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facilitating patient participation by embracing patients' preferences—A discussion

Eldh

2019

Evaluation Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Concept Of Patient Participationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facilitating patient participation by embracing patients' preferences—A discussion

Eldh

2019

Evaluation Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…To understand what we mean by thick concepts in the context of shareholding, it is useful to look at a few general examples of thick concepts. Cruelty, courage, humanness, exploitation, integrity, lie, lewdness, promise, and treachery are examples often mentioned (e.g., Abend, ; Gibbard & Blackburn, ; Payne, ; Putnam, ). What makes courage a thick concept is that it not only describes a specific situation or action but also provides an evaluation of that situation and tells us something about the motives and values of someone who acts courageously.…”

Section: Thick Evaluative Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The case for a thick shareholder concept

Pattit

2019

Business and Society Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Markets, corporations, shareholding, management, law, and ethics are all human constructs. A human element seems essential to their existence. Yet, the predominant conception of shareholders as used in academia as well as the business world is thin, generic, and inanimate. This article argues that a thick conception of shareholders as human beings is needed to legitimize and improve managerial decision making under value pluralism, accurately reflect empirical reality of capital markets, and meet moral demands to respect the dignity of the human person. Drawing on the philosophical idea of thick evaluative concepts, the article explores how this idea can be applied to shareholders and begins to examine some of the implications of considering shareholders’ humanity for the responsibilities of and relationships between managers and shareholders.

show abstract

“…10 Those who accept the analyzability of thick concepts include Gibbard (1992), Hurka and Elstein (2009), Tappolet (2004), Burton (1992), and Payne (2005). Those who reject it include Dancy (1995), Platts (1979, 244), Elgin (2008, 372-3), and Brewer (2009, 187).…”

Section: The Thickness Of Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hurka and Elstein (2009) have a view like this Tappolet (2004). andBurton (1992) use the 'in virtue of' relation Payne (2005). oscillates between 'in virtue of' and 'is a reason for'.Blackburn (1984, 148) provides the 'on account of' relation, though he is talking mainly about pejoratives, and it is not clear whether this can be extended to an account of thick terms.Gibbard's view (1992) is more complicated than these others, but the same claim will apply to his view as well.26 There are two other options.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge as a thick concept: explaining why the Gettier problem arises

Kyle

2012

Philos Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Gettier problem has stymied epistemologists. After Edmund Gettier (1963) proved the insufficiency of the tripartite analysis of knowledge, his paper was followed by a barrage of reformulated analyses, most of which were returned with potential counterexamples. 1 A succession of reformulations and counterexamples continued for over thirty years. However, within the past decade the general impetus to solve the Gettier problem has significantly receded (with only a few exceptions 2). But the abatement of this project is not due to any consensus over one particular analysis-quite the opposite. Despite the incredible effort invested in the project, no uncontroversial analysis has emerged. Indeed, some even believe the number of inadequate analyses indicates that no correct one is forthcoming (e.g. Williamson 2000, 30). Whether or not the Gettier problem is resolvable, we still must face an important question: Why does this problem arise in the first place? So far, philosophers have seen the Gettier problem as either a problem peculiar to the concept of knowledge, 3 or else an instance of a general problem about conceptual analysis. 4 But I would like to steer a middle course. I think the problem arises because knowledge is a particular kind of concept known as a thick evaluative concept, and a Gettierlike problem is just what we should expect from attempts at analyzing a concept of this sort. 5 These claims unfold as follows.

show abstract

A New Account of Thick Concepts

Cited by 11 publications

References 5 publications

Facilitating patient participation by embracing patients' preferences—A discussion

Facilitating patient participation by embracing patients' preferences—A discussion

The case for a thick shareholder concept

Knowledge as a thick concept: explaining why the Gettier problem arises

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About