Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-s9k8s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-15T10:30:48.801Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dead and Gone? Reply to Jenkins

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2013

KARL EKENDAHL  and
JENS JOHANSSON
KARL EKENDAHL
Affiliation:
Uppsala University, [email protected]
JENS JOHANSSON
Affiliation:
Uppsala University, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a recent article, Joyce L. Jenkins challenges the common belief that desire satisfactionists are committed to the view that a person's welfare can be affected by posthumous events. Jenkins argues that desire satisfactionists can and should say that posthumous events only play an epistemic role: though such events cannot harm me, they can reveal that I have already been harmed by something else. In this response, however, we show that Jenkins's approach collapses into the view she aims to avoid.

Type
Debate
Information
Utilitas , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 218 - 220
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

1 Jenkins, Joyce L., ‘Dead and Gone’, Utilitas 23 (2011), pp. 228–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 229.

2 Jenkins, ‘Dead and Gone’, p. 228.

3 Parfit, Derek, Reasons and Persons (Oxford, 1984), p. 495Google Scholar.

4 Parfit, Reasons and Persons, p. 495.

5 Jenkins, ‘Dead and Gone’, p. 233.

6 Jenkins, ‘Dead and Gone’, p. 234.

7 Jenkins, ‘Dead and Gone’, p. 234.

8 We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments.