López de Sa, Dan
(2008)
Defending “Restricted Particularism” from Jackson, Pettit & Smith.
THEORIA. An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science, 23 (2).
pp. 133-143.
ISSN 2171-679X
Abstract
According to Jackson, Pettit & Smith (2000), “restricted particularism” is not affected by their supervenience-based consideration against particularism but, they claim, suffer from a different difficulty, roughly that it would violate the platitude about moral argument that, in debating controversial moral issues, a central role is played by various similarity claims. I present a defense of “restricted particularism” from this objection, which accommodates the platitudinous character of the claim that ordinary participants in conversations concerning the evaluative are committed to descriptive similarities and differences being relevant in the way described by Jackson, Pettit and Smith, to moral similarities and differences. My defense exploits a presuppositional component congenial to response-dependent proposals such as Lewis’s (1989).
Item Type: |
Published Article or Volume
|
Creators: |
|
Additional Information: |
ISSN: 0495-4548 (print) |
Keywords: |
particularism, response-dependence, restricted particularism, values |
Depositing User: |
Users 15304 not found. |
Date Deposited: |
28 Feb 2014 00:28 |
Last Modified: |
28 Feb 2014 00:28 |
Item ID: |
10392 |
Journal or Publication Title: |
THEORIA. An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science |
Publisher: |
Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea / Universidad del País Vasco |
Official URL: |
http://www.ehu.es/ojs/index.php/THEORIA/article/vi... |
DOI or Unique Handle: |
10.1387/theoria.390 |
Date: |
November 2008 |
Page Range: |
pp. 133-143 |
Volume: |
23 |
Number: |
2 |
ISSN: |
2171-679X |
URI: |
https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/10392 |
Monthly Views for the past 3 years
Monthly Downloads for the past 3 years
Plum Analytics
Altmetric.com
Actions (login required)
|
View Item |