Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T00:38:32.978Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

VAULTING INTUITION: TEMKIN'S CRITIQUE OF TRANSITIVITY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2013

Alex Voorhoeve*
Affiliation:
London School of Economics, [email protected]

Extract

How to rank distributions of benefits and harms? In this book, Larry Temkin addresses this question in detail. Its core claims are two. First, the goodness of a distribution is sometimes ‘essentially comparative’ – it sometimes depends on which alternative distribution(s) it is compared to. Second, there are many cases in which our intuitions are at odds with the transitivity of ‘all things considered better than’ and these cases give us reason to doubt that this relation is transitive. (Transitivity holds that if some alternative a3 is better than a2, and a2 is better than a1, then a3 is better than a1.)

Type
Critical Notice
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

Binmore, K. and Voorhoeve, A.. 2003. Defending transitivity against Zeno's paradox. Philosophy and Public Affairs 31: 272279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R. 2013. A note on transitivity and incompleteness. Choice Group Working Papers 9 (1). http://www2.lse.ac.uk/CPNSS/projects/CoreResearchProjects/ChoiceGroup/PDF_files/Transitive-Choice12.pdfGoogle Scholar
Broome, J. 1991. Weighing Goods. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Broome, J. 2004. Weighing Lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, C. 2011. Consequentialize this. Ethics 121: 749771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, E. 2005. Intransitivity without Zeno's paradox. In Recent Work on Intrinsic Value, ed. Zimmerman, M. J. and Rønnow-Rasmussen, T., 273277. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Cowell, F., Fleurbaey, M. and Tungodden, B.. 2010. The tyranny puzzle in welfare economics: an empirical investigation. STICERD working paper PEP-5.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M., Tungodden, B. and Vallentyne, P.. 2009. On the possibility of nonaggregative priority for the worst off. Social Philosophy and Policy 26: 258285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamm, F. M. 1993. Morality, Mortality, Vol. I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kamm, F. M. 2007. Intricate Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1983. Survival and identity. In Philosophical Papers, Vol. I, 55–77. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Norcross, A. 1997. Comparing harms: headaches and human lives. Philosophy and Public Affairs 26: 135167.Google Scholar
Norcross, A. 1999. Intransitivity and the person-affecting principle. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research LIX: 769776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otsuka, M. 2006. Saving lives, moral theory, and the claims of individuals. Philosophy and Public Affairs 34: 110135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qizilbash, M. 2005. Transitivity and vagueness. Economics and Philosophy 21: 109131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rachels, S. 1998. Counterexamples to the transitivity of better than. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 76: 7183.Google Scholar
Scanlon, T. M. 1998. What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Slovic, P., Zionts, D., Woods, A. K., Goodman, R., and Jinkse, D., forthcoming. Psychic numbing and mass atrocity. In The Behavioral Foundations of Policy, ed. Shafir, E.. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Temkin, L. 1987. Intransitivity and the Mere Addition Paradox. Philosophy and Public Affairs 16: 138187.Google Scholar
Temkin, L. 1996. A continuum argument for intransitivity. Philosophy and Public Affairs 25: 175210.Google Scholar
Vallentyne, P. 1993. The connection between prudential and moral goodness. Journal of Social Philosophy 24: 105128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voorhoeve, A. 2008. Heuristics and biases in a purported counterexample to the acyclicity of ‘better than’. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 7: 285299.Google Scholar
Voorhoeve, A. 2013. How should we aggregate competing claims? Unpublished ms., available on http://personal.lse.ac.uk/voorhoevGoogle Scholar