Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 57–70 | Cite as

Value Incomparability and Indeterminacy

Article

Abstract

Two competing accounts of value incomparability have been put forward in the recent literature. According to the standard account, developed most famously by Joseph Raz, ‘incomparability’ means determinate failure of the three classic value relations (better than, worse than, and equally good): two value-bearers are incomparable with respect to a value V if and only if (i) it is false that x is better than y with respect to V, (ii) it is false that x is worse than y with respect to V and (iii) it is false that x and y are equally good with respect to V. Most philosophers have followed Raz in adopting this account of incomparability. Recently, however, John Broome has advocated an alternative view, on which value incomparability is explained in terms of vagueness or indeterminacy. In this paper I aim to further Broome’s view in two ways. Firstly, I want to supply independent reasons for thinking that the phenomenon of value incomparability is indeed a matter of the indeterminacy inherent in our comparative predicates. Secondly, I attempt to defend Broome’s account by warding off several objections that worry him, due mainly to Erik Carlson and Ruth Chang.

Keywords

Value incomparability Vagueness Comparative predicates Moral disagreement Broome Carlson Chang 

References

  1. Broome J (1997) Is incommensurability vagueness? In: Chang R (ed) Incommensurability, incomparability, and practical reasoning. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 67–89Google Scholar
  2. Broome J (2001) Greedy neutrality of value. In: Rabinowicz W (ed) Value and Choice, vol 2. University of Lund, pp 7–16Google Scholar
  3. Broome J (2004) Weighing lives. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carlson E (2004) Broome’s argument against value incomparability. Utilitas 16:92–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chang R (2002a) Making comparisons count. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang R (2002b) The possibility of parity. Ethics 112:659–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Griffin J (1986) Well-being: its meaning, measurement, and moral importance. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Parfit D (1984) Reasons and persons. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Raz J (1985–86) Value incommensurability: some preliminaries. Proc. of the Aristot. Soc. 86: 117–134Google Scholar
  10. Raz J (1986) The morality of freedom. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Wright C (1976) Language mastery and the sorites paradox. In: Evans G, McDowell J (eds) Truth and meaning: essays in semantics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 223–247Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Birkbeck CollegeLondonUK

Personalised recommendations