Article contents
No Argument against the Continuity of Value: Reply to Dorsey
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 November 2010
Extract
Dorsey rejects Conclusion, so he believes he must reject one of the premises. He argues that the best option is to reject Premise 3. Rejecting Premise 3 entails a certain sort of discontinuity in value. So Dorsey believes he has an argument for discontinuity.
- Type
- Discussion
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010
References
1 Utilitas, 21 (2009), pp. 36–58. The premises and conclusion are stated on p. 36; the claim that the inference is valid is on p. 37.
2 ‘A Continuum Argument for Intransitivity’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 25 (1996), pp. 175–210, at p. 180.
3 ‘Defending Transitivity against Zeno's Paradox’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 31 (2003), pp. 272–9.
- 3
- Cited by