Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 23 (3-4):651-666 (2020)

Authors
N. D. Cannon
Florida State University
Abstract
In this paper, I criticize the pairing of irreducible thickness with the traditional view of evaluation which says evaluation is a matter of encoding good or bad in some way. To do this, I first explicate the determination view, which holds that irreducibly thick concepts are to thin concepts as determinates are to determinables. I then show that, even if the determination view did establish irreducible thickness, it would not have proven that the evaluative is well understood as being an instance of the determination relation; in order to do that, the determination view needs to show how the evaluative fit a general analysis of the determination relation. However, when the determination view attempts to fill in the analysis, we get implausible results—so implausible, I claim, that we should see the results as a reductio to the view. To generalize the criticism to any view like the determination view, I show that the same results ensue when we model the evaluative on mereology. Finally, I diagnose the general failure by claiming that the evaluative domain, as conceived by the defender of irreducible thickness, just does not have the structure to secure the tight connection between thick and thin concepts while also carving up our conceptual economy in a plausible way.
Keywords Metaethics  Thick Concepts  Evaluation  Irreducible Thickness  Determinate-Determinable Relation
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10677-020-10108-w
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,257
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Mereology.Achille C. Varzi - 2016 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Thick Concepts.Debbie Roberts - 2013 - Philosophy Compass 8 (8):677-688.
The Logical Structure of Kinds.Eric Funkhouser - 2014 - Oxford University Press.

View all 21 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Thick Ethical Concepts.Pekka Väyrynen - 2016 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Shapelessness and the Thick.Debbie Roberts - 2011 - Ethics 121 (3):489-520.
Thick Ethical Concepts.Pekka Väyrynen - 2016 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Thick Concepts and Underdetermination.Pekka Väyrynen - 2013 - In Simon Kirchin (ed.), Thick Concepts. Oxford University Press. pp. 136-160.
How Are Thick Terms Evaluative?Brent G. Kyle - 2013 - Philosophers' Imprint 13:1-20.
Thickness and Evaluation.Matti Eklund - 2017 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 14 (1):89-104.
Thick Concepts.Debbie Roberts - 2013 - Philosophy Compass 8 (8):677-688.
Thick Evaluation.T. Kirchin Simon - 2014 - Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Thick Concepts and Variability.Pekka Väyrynen - 2011 - Philosophers' Imprint 11:1-17.
A Semiotic Understanding of Thick Terms.Aihua Wang - 2014 - ProtoSociology 31:182-201.
Thick Concepts and Context Dependence.Anna Bergqvist - 2013 - Southwest Philosophy Review 29 (1):221-232.
Objectionable Thick Concepts in Denials.Pekka Väyrynen - 2009 - Philosophical Perspectives 23 (1):439-469.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-07-22

Total views
20 ( #555,393 of 2,499,775 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #169,732 of 2,499,775 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes