Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T13:59:32.314Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS AND INTERPERSONAL UTILITY COMPARISONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2011

Mauro Rossi
Mauro Rossi*
Affiliation:
Université du Québec à Montréal, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to the orthodox view, it is impossible to know how different people's preferences compare in terms of strength and whether they are interpersonally comparable at all. Against the orthodox view, Donald Davidson (1986, 2004) argues that the interpersonal comparability of preferences is a necessary condition for the correct interpretation of other people's behaviour. In this paper I claim that, as originally stated, Davidson's argument does not succeed because it is vulnerable to several objections, including Barry Stroud's (1968) objection against all transcendental arguments of a ‘strong’ kind. However, I argue that Davidson's strategy can still achieve results of anti-sceptical significance. If we reformulate Davidson's argument as a ‘modest’ transcendental argument and if we embrace an ‘internal’ account of epistemic justification, it is in fact possible to have at least justified beliefs about how different people's preferences compare in terms of strength and about their interpersonal comparability.

Type
Articles
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , November 2011 , pp. 273 - 295
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arrow, K. 1963. Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Binmore, K. 2009. Interpersonal comparison of utility. In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Economics, eds. Kincaid, H. and Ross, D., 540–559. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R. 2007. Comparing evaluations. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 108: 85–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancy, J. 1985. An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. 1984. Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. 1986. Judging interpersonal interests. In Foundations of Social Choice Theory, eds. Elster, J. and Hylland, A., 195–211. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. 2003. Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. 2004. Problems of Rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D. 1987. The Intentional Stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, R. and Conee, E. 1985. Evidentialism. Philosophical Studies 48: 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. 1989. Interpretation psychologised. Mind and Language 4: 161–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. 2006. Simulating Minds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandy, R. 1973. Reference, meaning, and belief. Journal of Philosophy 70: 439–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, J. 1986. Well-Being: Its Meaning, Measurement, and Moral Importance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hammond, P. 1991. Interpersonal comparisons of utility: why and how they are and should be made. In Interpersonal Comparisons of Well-Being, ed. Elster, J. and Roemer, J., 200–254. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harsanyi, J. 1955. Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility. Journal of Political Economy 63: 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harsanyi, J. 1977. Rational Behaviour and Bargaining Equilibrium in Games and Social Situations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, D. 1995. The impossibility of interpersonal utility comparisons. Mind 104: 473–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isbell, J. 1959. Absolute games. In Contributions to the Theory of Games, ed. Tucker, A.W. and Luce, R.D.357–396. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R. 1971. On interpersonal utility theory. Journal of Philosophy 68: 647–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, L. 2003. Are interpersonal comparisons of utility indeterminate? Erkenntnis 58: 229–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepore, E. and Ludwig, K. 2005. Donald Davidson. Meaning, Truth, Language, and Reality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGinn, C. 1977. Charity, interpretation, and belief. Journal of Philosophy 74: 521–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsey, F. 1926. Truth and probability. Reprinted in Philosophical Papers, ed. Mellor, D.H., 1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robbins, L. 1932. An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Schick, F. 1971. Beyond utilitarianism. Journal of Philosophy 68: 657–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. 1970. Collective Choice and Social Welfare. San Francisco, CA: Holden-Day.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1979. Interpersonal comparisons of welfare. In Economics and Human Welfare: Essays in Honor of Tibor Scitovsky, ed. Boskin, M.J.183–201. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, E. 1988. Beyond scepticism, to the best of our knowledge. Mind 97: 153–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, R. 1999. Transcendental Arguments: Problems and Prospects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stern, R. 2000. Transcendental Arguments and Scepticism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroud, B. 1968. Transcendental arguments. Journal of Philosophy 65: 241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroud, B. 2002. Understanding Human Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Neumann, J. & Morgenstern, O. 1944. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Waldner, I. 1972. The empirical meaningfulness of interpersonal utility comparisons. Journal of Philosophy 4: 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weintraub, R. 1995. The impossibility of interpersonal utility comparisons: a critical note. Mind 105: 661–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weintraub, R. 1998. Do utility comparisons pose a problem? Philosophical Studies 92: 307–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar