Some Of Our Books


« Chisholm on Intrinsic Value | Main | The Teleological Conception of (Practical) Reasons (TCR), Part II »

September 25, 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Disjunctions are an interesting problem, I think, and not just for Chisholm. It's not just disjunctions that are a problem either. What about: *there is at least one happy Canadian.* What's the value of that? Is it less or more than: *there are fewer than seven happy Canadians*?

Michael Zimmerman and Erik Carlson have written some good stuff on this topic. I think Zimmerman says that it doesn't matter what we say about the values of disjunctions and such, since they don't have *basic* intrinsic value. We might as well say they have no value. Carlson, I think, does something with ranges.

On first glance (which I'm afraid is all the glancing I've yet done!), it looks like the thing to say about disjunctions etc. is that their value is indeterminate between that of each basic disjunct. Then it's clear how C can be better than D. (And it's still indeterminate whether *there is at least one happy Canadian* is better than *there are fewer than seven happy Canadians* -- which seems the right result, right?)

Ben and Richard,
I'll have to look at what's beens said already. But there is a difference, between disjunction and the other cases you list. These other cases seem to me to have an indeterminate amount of goodness or badness, but that could be because of purely epistemic reasons. We know there's less that seven happy Canadians, but we just don't know how many. It's not that the number of happy Canadians, while less than 7, is itself indeterminate.

In the disjunction case, things are different. It does not seem to me, as Richard suggests, that we can reduce the question of the comparison of the disjunctions to comparisons of each disjunct. Over and above the betterness of 3 happy Canadians to 1 happy Canadian (and so on) there is the fact that the one disjuction is better than the other. It's not just that there is some determinate amount of betterness in the one over the other, and we just can't know about it. It seems that it really is indeterminate how much better C is than D, one that couldn't be remedied by further investigation, for instance or better epistemic gear.

Hi Robert,

I'm afraid I don't see the difference. I assume the State of Affairs *there are fewer than seven happy Canadians* just is (numerically identical to) the disjunctive SoA *there are six happy Canadians or five happy Canadians or four or [...]*

Now, I gather from your comments that you reject this equivalence. But could you explain for me how the two are meant to differ?

Another thing: "It seems that it really is indeterminate how much better C is than D, one that couldn't be remedied by further investigation, for instance or better epistemic gear."

I agree. I meant to speak of non-epistemic indeterminacy throughout. Now, if the value of C is indeterminately 3 or 4 utils, and D is indeterminately 1 or 2 utils, then it is objectively indeterminate how much better C is than D. To be precise: it is indeterminate whether C is better than D by 1, 2, or 3 utils. (But it is at least determinate that C is better than D, by supervaluation over all possible resolutions of the indeterminacies.)

Zimmerman, "Evaluatively Incomplete States of Affairs," Phil Studies 43 (1983)
Carlson, "The Intrinsic Value of Non-Basic States of Affairs," Phil Studies 85 (1997)
Anthony Anderson, "Chisholm and the Logic of Intrinsic Value," The Philosophy of Roderick Chisholm.

I think Richard is right that there's no need to bring in anything epistemic, even for quantified states of affairs that can't be identified with disjunctions.

Thanks for the citations!
I agree there's no need to bring in anything epistemic. It's that it can be brought in in the case of 'less than' and 'more than' judgments to explain the indeterminacy. I don't see how it could in the case of betterness comparisons among disjunctions. That is, if I am right that the betterness of C to D is more than the betterness of each disjunct of C to each disjunct of D.
Also, that, e.g., 'less than 7 Canadians are happy' may be identifiable with a set of disjunctions. But it is the betterness of one disjunction to another that I was commenting on.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ethics at PEA Soup

PPE at PEA Soup

Like PEA Soup

Search PEA Soup


  • Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed in any given post reflect the opinion of only that individual who posted the particular entry or comment.