Incommensurability and vagueness in spectrum arguments: options for saving transitivity of betterness

Article

Abstract

The spectrum argument purports to show that the better-than relation is not transitive, and consequently that orthodox value theory is built on dubious foundations. The argument works by constructing a sequence of increasingly less painful but more drawn-out experiences, such that each experience in the spectrum is worse than the previous one, yet the final experience is better than the experience with which the spectrum began. Hence the betterness relation admits cycles, threatening either transitivity or asymmetry of the relation. This paper examines recent attempts to block the spectrum argument, using the idea that it is a mistake to affirm that every experience in the spectrum is worse than its predecessor: an alternative hypothesis is that adjacent experiences may be incommensurable in value, or that due to vagueness in the underlying concepts, it is indeterminate which is better. While these attempts formally succeed as responses to the spectrum argument, they have additional, as yet unacknowledged costs that are significant. In order to effectively block the argument in its most typical form, in which the first element is radically inferior to the last, it is necessary to suppose that the incommensurability (or indeterminacy) is particularly acute: what might be called radical incommensurability (radical indeterminacy). We explain these costs, and draw some general lessons about the plausibility of the available options for those who wish to save orthodox axiology from the spectrum argument.

Keywords

Axiology Transitivity Spectrum argument Temkin Vagueness Incommensurability Indeterminacy Superiority Inferiority 

References

  1. Andersson, H. (2017a). How it all relates: Exploring the space of value comparisons. Ph.D. dissertation, Lund University.Google Scholar
  2. Andersson, H. (2017b). Spectrum arguments, indeterminacy, and value superiority. Draft.Google Scholar
  3. Arrhenius, G., & Rabinowicz, W. (2005). Millian superiorities. Utilitas, 17(02), 127–146.Google Scholar
  4. Arrhenius, G., & Rabinowicz, W. (2015). The value of existence. In I. Hirose & J. Olson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of value theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Broome, J. (1999). Ethics out of economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Broome, J. (2004). Weighing lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang, R. (2002). The possibility of parity. Ethics, 112(4), 659–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Handfield, T. (2014). Rational choice and the transitivity of betterness. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 89(3), 584–604.Google Scholar
  9. Hare, C. (2010). Take the sugar. Analysis, 70(2), 237–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Knapp, C. (2007). Trading quality for quantity. Journal of Philosophical Research, 32, 211–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lehrer, K., & Wagner, C. (1985). Intransitive indifference and the semi-order problem. Synthese, 65, 249–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Qizilbash, M. (2005). Transitivity and vagueness. Economics and Philosophy, 21(1), 109–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rabinowicz, W. (2003). Ryberg’s doubts about higher and lower pleasures—Put to rest? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 6, 231–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rabinowicz, W. (2008). Value relations. Theoria, 74(1), 18–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rabinowicz, W. (2009). Incommensurability and vagueness. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 83(1), 71–94.Google Scholar
  16. Rabinowicz, W. (2012). Value relations revisited. Economics and Philosophy, 28(2), 133–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rachels, S. (2001). A set of solutions to Parfit’s problems. Nous, 35, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Raz, J. (1986). Value incommensurability: Some preliminaries. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 86, 117–134.Google Scholar
  19. Temkin, L. S. (2012). Rethinking the good. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Monash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Lund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations