IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/ecnphi/v21y2005i01p109-131_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Transitivity And Vagueness

Author

Listed:
  • QIZILBASH, MOZAFFAR

Abstract

Axiomatic utility theory plays a foundational role in some accounts of normative principles. In this context, it is sometimes argued that transitivity of “better than†is a logical truth. Larry Temkin and Stuart Rachels use various examples to argue that “better than†is non–transitive, and that transitivity is not a logical truth. These examples typically involve some sort of “discontinuity.†In his discussion of one of these examples, John Broome suggests that we should reject the claim which involves “discontinuity.†We can, I suggest, make sense of the examples which Temkin uses while sacrificing neither transitivity nor “discontinuity.†This response to Temkin's examples involves developing and modifying James Griffin's account of “discontinuity.†If the account of “discontinuity†seems implausible, that is because of a failure to allow for vagueness. A similar argument can be made in the context of the well-known “repugnant conclusion.â€

Suggested Citation

  • Qizilbash, Mozaffar, 2005. "Transitivity And Vagueness," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(1), pages 109-131, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:21:y:2005:i:01:p:109-131_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0266267104000410/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Peter Baumann, 2022. "Rational intransitive preferences," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 21(1), pages 3-28, February.
    2. Handfield, Toby, 2013. "Rational choice and the transitivity of betterness," MPRA Paper 49956, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:21:y:2005:i:01:p:109-131_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/eap .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.