Bad Company Abstraction Essay

Good Essays
For now, let us avoid any further metaphysical gymnastics of the arguments of Bad Company Objections. But if we abandon the search of the acceptability conditions, what lesson could we learn from Bad Company Objection? There is an analogous matter which Ebert and Shapiro (1999, p.298) labelled ‘Good Company’. Assuming we have successfully constructed an account of acceptability which helps us to rule out ‘bad’ principles; there is another question that neo-Fregean logicists to answer. Why is it that only the stipulation of ‘good’ abstraction principles earn such a special epistemic status and no other kind of stipulation does? The fundamental difference between Direct Stipulations and Bad Company Objection is that where former seeks conditions to rule out …show more content…
First, PA can be elaborated in pure second-order logic and contains no contradictions, and if it does, neo-logicsts would not use HP to derive PA. Second, PA is also conservative and there is no part that PA introduces any new mathematical and non-mathematical ontology to the universe. Third, although it is little hard to tell whether PA is harmonious but at least I do not find any conflict within the nine axioms of PA and clearly there is no non-logical rules or operators. Finally, the stipulation of PA fails in fixing truth-values at least in some contexts involves the primitives such as “N”, “0”, etc. As such, PA cannot fix truth-conditions of an expression such as “0 = Julius Caesar”. MacFarlane (p.452), however, concerns little about this issue and says that even Hale and Wright does not say that the range must be infinitely large. If MacFarlane’s proposal is true then there would be no problem in regarding the stipulation of PA as a true implicit definition, since PA fixes the meaning of expressions contain PA, and also satisfies the four conditions proposed by Hale and Wright (2001,

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    One principle issue is that utilitarianism, if embraced, legitimizes as ethically suitable things that are unmistakably improper. For instance, utilitarianism can be utilized to legitimize rebuffing a guiltless man or subjugating a group of individuals if such acts create an amplification of outcomes. In any case, these demonstrations are plainly indecent paying little heed to how productive they may be for the best number. For this and different reasons, numerous masterminds have pushed a moment sort of good hypothesis,…

    • 1408 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Objectivism states that some moral claims are objectively true. One big difference between objectivism and nihilism is that objectivism depends on process of elimination rather than actual merits. It says that nihilism, objectivism, or relativism has to be true before eliminating nihilism and relativism as being false. This leaves only objectivism standing, so proponents say it must be true. While this is a strategic approach, it is not strong.…

    • 1071 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Nagel says that everything results from a “combined influence of factors,”(Nagel, 35) which further indicates nothing is truly within one’s control. The problem is that if the condition of control is true, then moral luck violates this understood notion. Moral luck is fundamentally concerned with moral judgement without due consideration of external inevitable factors, and herein lies the undeniable conflict. He discusses how moral luck cannot account for the condition of control, yet we tend to accept both as justification for moral assessment. When Moral Luck is reduced down to the main conflict, it is clear that the condition of control is accepted because it is an agreed-upon staple of fair judgement, but moral luck shows that we actually judge people based on the…

    • 785 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Because compatibilism solve the conflict between freewill and determinism by retaining both freewill and determinism together. Compatibilism says that actually determinism and freewill is compatibilism with each other. The only problem was that we misunderstand the concept of freewill and by understanding the concept properly, the conflict will automatically vanish. On the other hand, incompatibilism produce conflict between freedom and determinism by saying that freewill is incompatibilism with determinism. Incompatibilism try to solve the conflict by rejecting freewill and determinism each time in ‘hard determinism’ and ‘libertarian’.…

    • 1162 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Free Will Vs Determinism

    • 1009 Words
    • 5 Pages

    A neutral stance to this is the claim that “ one can be held morally responsible for one’s actions only if one could have acted otherwise in a given set of circumstances.” (The Philosophical Review, page 440). Determinist would disagree with this claim because it is if an agent is never in control of the situations that they are forced into, how can they be morally responsible. Free will does not easily tie into the premise because if we choose our own action then we should be held morally reasonable for them, but if one said that “X” did Y because she/ he could it fails to prove moral responsibility and seems as if our action or arbitrary or random. However if an act is described as “not determined” or “uncaused” that means that free will cannot be used because the action is random therefore not in the agent’s power, thus making morally responsibility invalid. Simply, without the just the agent being the cause of an action, they cannot be held to moral…

    • 1009 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Cognitivism Analysis

    • 985 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Numerous would along these lines contend, that from our assessment, it is important to thusly move far from cognitivism and its attention on ethical quality as a basically certain certainty. Because of the way that G.E.Moore 's reaction to naturalism comes up short by its own particular guidelines, does this not propose that moral dialect is non-psychological and hostile to realist? Firstly, we have to consider the domain of emotivism and fundamentally A.J. Ayer– the methodology that most concurs with good explanations only being a declaration of sentiment. Comprehensively talking, the expression "expressivism" alludes to a group of perspectives in the rationality of dialect as indicated by which the implications of cases in a specific range…

    • 985 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The default belief is that there is a single reality in which knowledge exists, if a critic argues against this, he or she would be saying that there is knowledge for the contrary, which is contradictory: their claim defeats itself. For either side of the argument to be fruitful in efforts, one side would have to have objective knowledge. Disagreeing has never been a sign that there is no truth at all. For example, few doubt the existence of some overarching moral code; they may disagree on the specifics of that code without finding that as lack of any code at all. If there were no objective knowledge, there would be complete chaos; there are so many things in the grand scheme of life that are universally agreed upon.…

    • 1153 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    A known defender for this model is economist Milton Friedman. One of two arguments in favor of this model is the utilitarian defense. Utilitarians argues that the morality of an action is determined by the total amount of good it creates and measured against the total amount of harm. In other words, as long as it benefits the majority, the minority is nothing to worry about. However, a flaw of this theory is that it is impossible to correctly determine the total harms and benefits of an action.…

    • 1154 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Debunking Ethical Realism

    • 712 Words
    • 3 Pages

    FitzPatrick argues that such forces do not stand in the way of our grasping moral facts, and in doing so sketches his own view of realism. Foremost in his view is that we are capable of grasping moral truths. It is this grasp that debunking arguments contend is impossible, whether because our mental capacities and moral beliefs are distorted by evolution or by something else. But FitzPatrick says that evolution does not necessarily distort our capacity to grasp moral reality. It is reasonable, he says, to assume that we evolved mechanisms (such as cooperation) that both allow us to live longer and allow us to form a correct understanding of morality (17-18).…

    • 712 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Mill's Utilitarianism

    • 725 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Consequences of actions play a crucial role in determining the moral permissibility and prohibition. The problem with Mill’s argument is that he described consequence to be the only thing that matters and ignored every other thing. In the opinion of Rachels, this strict approach of Mill’s Utilitarianism “is at odds with such fundamental moral notions as justice and individual rights, and it seems unable to account for the place of backward-looking reasons in justifying conduct.” (Rachels…

    • 725 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays