Pluralism, Intransitivity, Incoherence

W. Edmundson
{"title":"Pluralism, Intransitivity, Incoherence","authors":"W. Edmundson","doi":"10.1017/CBO9780511575488.012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Pluralism is an appealing and now orthodox view of the sources of value. But pluralism has led to well-known difficulties for social-choice theory. Moreover, as Susan Hurley has argued, the difficulties of pluralism go even deeper. In 1954, Kenneth May suggested an intrapersonal analogue to Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. In brief, May showed that an individual's response to a plurality of values will, given certain additional assumptions, lead to intransitive preference orderings. (Daniel Kahneman and others have shown that intransitivity is an empirical feature of preferences.) Hurley challenged May's additional assumptions as implausibly strong; but her work did not exclude the possibility that values may disobey the canon of rationality that insists on transitivity. John Broome has recently extended these canons to the \"betterness\" relation. This chapter argues that there is no good reason to be confident that values, understood as real features of the world, behave consistently with those canons.","PeriodicalId":431450,"journal":{"name":"Jurisprudence & Legal Philosophy","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurisprudence & Legal Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511575488.012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Pluralism is an appealing and now orthodox view of the sources of value. But pluralism has led to well-known difficulties for social-choice theory. Moreover, as Susan Hurley has argued, the difficulties of pluralism go even deeper. In 1954, Kenneth May suggested an intrapersonal analogue to Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. In brief, May showed that an individual's response to a plurality of values will, given certain additional assumptions, lead to intransitive preference orderings. (Daniel Kahneman and others have shown that intransitivity is an empirical feature of preferences.) Hurley challenged May's additional assumptions as implausibly strong; but her work did not exclude the possibility that values may disobey the canon of rationality that insists on transitivity. John Broome has recently extended these canons to the "betterness" relation. This chapter argues that there is no good reason to be confident that values, understood as real features of the world, behave consistently with those canons.
多元主义,不及物性,不连贯
多元主义是一种吸引人的、现在是正统的价值来源观。但是多元主义给社会选择理论带来了众所周知的困难。此外,正如苏珊•赫尔利(Susan Hurley)所指出的那样,多元化的困难甚至更深。1954年,肯尼斯·梅(Kenneth May)提出了一个与阿罗不可能定理类似的个人理论。简而言之,May表明,在给定某些额外假设的情况下,个体对多种价值观的反应将导致不及物偏好排序。(丹尼尔·卡尼曼(Daniel Kahneman)等人已经证明,不及物性是偏好的经验特征。)赫尔利对梅的额外假设提出了质疑,认为这些假设令人难以置信地强大;但她的工作并没有排除价值观可能违背坚持及物性的理性准则的可能性。约翰•布鲁姆(John Broome)最近将这些准则扩展到了“更好”的关系。本章认为,没有充分的理由相信,被理解为世界真实特征的价值观,其行为与这些准则一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信