The Possibility of Parity

Chang, Ruth

doi:10.1086/339673

Cited by 314 publications

(221 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

216

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…24 How to understand these cases more precisely is a matter of much debate. For some suggestions, see Chang (2002), Griffin (1997), andGert (2004). I'll try to remain somewhat neutral among those different ways of understanding the phenomena, but I place some ordering constraints below that are relevant to this debate.…”

Section: Persistence Of Intentionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…So even if aesthetic appreciation and gastronomic enjoyment are incommensurable, if my choice is between watching "Tokyo Story" and having dinner at Chez Panisse, on the one hand, and watching "Battlefield Earth" and eating at Subway on the other, it will be arguably the case that I must choose the former. However, it is still correct that there is a wide array of choice situations and possible alternatives in which choices involve a plurality of values and ends, and it might be that there will be whole range of 29 I using Chang's notion of 'being on a par' (Chang 2002), but this point, of course, does not depend on accepting Chang's views on incommensurability.…”

Section: Incommensurabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Minimalism about Intention: A Modest Defense

Tenenbaum

2014

Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Persistence Of Intentionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Incommensurabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimalism about Intention: A Modest Defense

Tenenbaum

2014

Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…] with respect to p," 1 where p is a "covering consideration," such as beauty or efficiency (Chang, 2016, p. 215, 217). As simple as it may seem, with all arguments laid out and all footnotes carefully filled in (Chang, 2002;Temkin, 2012), comparativism makes a comparatively strong theory of the normative grounds of practical reason.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Practical Argumentation as Reasoned Advocacy

Lewiński

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The paper offers a theoretical investigation into the sources of normativity in practical argumentation. The chief question is: Do we need objectively-minded, unbiased arguers or can we count on "good" argumentative processes in which individual biases cancel each other out? I address this question by analysing a detailed structure of practical argument and its varieties, and by discussing the tenets of a comparative approach to practical reason. I argue that given the comparative structure proposed, reasoned advocacy in argumentative activity upholds reasonableness whenever that activity is adequately designed. I propose some basic rules for such a design of practical argumentation.Résumé: Cet article offre un examen théorique des sources de normativité dans l'argumentation pratique. La question principale qui nous occupe est la suivante: avons-nous besoin d'argumentateurs objectifs et non-biaisés ou pouvons-nous compter sur de "bons" processus argumentatifs susceptibles de neutraliser les biais individuels? Je traite d'abord cette question à travers une analyse de la structure détaillée de l'argumentation pratique et de ses variétés et ensuite par une discussion des fondements d'une approche comparative de la raison pratique. Je défends l'idée que selon la structure comparative proposée, tout plaidoyer raisonné dans une activité argumentative maintient la raisonnabilité tant que cette activité est conçue de manière appropriée. Je propose quelques règles de base pour une telle conception de l'argumentation pratique.

show abstract

“…(2), there is some ground for hesitation for he also claims, as we saw in the previous section, that Level II judgments (which we take to be pro tanto moral judgments) are also non-binary. 9 In particular, the so-called 'small improvement argument' by Chang (2002) that was designed to support the idea that there is a third sui generis value-relation, namely, 'on a par'. For an overview of the debate, see Hsieh (2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%