On an argument about reference to future individuals

Philosophical Quarterly 45 (178):84-87 (1995)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper critically examines Roger Teichmann's defence of the claim that it is impossible to refer to future individuals. (Bibliographical details are provided in the article.)

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.2307/2219851

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Should We Seek a Better Future?Ernest Partridge - 1998 - Ethics and the Environment 3 (1):81-95.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Possibility of an Actually Infinite Future.Eric Sotnak - 1999 - Philo 2 (2):41-52.
Attention & Inscrutability.Austen Clark & Manchester Hall - unknown
A note about a Quinean argument against direct reference.Graham Oppy - 1994 - Philosophia 24 (1-2):157-170.
Parenting and Intergenerational Justice: Why Collective Obligations Towards Future Generations Take Second Place to Individual Responsibility. [REVIEW]M. L. J. Wissenburg - 2011 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (6):557-573.
Concept Possession, Experimental Semantics, and Hybrid Theories of Reference.James Genone & Tania Lombrozo - 2012 - Philosophical Psychology 25 (5):1-26.
Quine's double standard: undermining the indispensability argument via the indeterminacy of reference.Otávio Bueno - 2003 - Principia 7 (1-2):17-39.
On how to interpret the role of the future within the abortion debate.Ezio Di Nucci - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (10):651-652.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
185 (#103,265)

6 months
54 (#77,515)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Graham Oppy
Monash University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references