Dan Lopez de Sa
According to Jackson, Pettit & Smith (2000), "restricted particularism" is not affected by their supervenience-based consideration against particularism but, they claim, suffer from a different difficulty, roughly that it would violate the platitude about moral argument that, in debating controversial moral issues, a central role is played by various similarity claims. I present a defense of "restricted particularism" from this objection, which accommodates the platitudinous character of the claim that ordinary participants in conversations concerning the evaluative are committed to descriptive similarities and differences being relevant in the way described by Jackson, Pettit and Smith, to moral similarities and differences. My defense exploits a presuppositional component congenial to response-dependent proposals such as Lewis's (1989)
How to Cite
Lopez de Sa, D. (2008). Defending "Restricted Particularism" from Jackson, Pettit & Smith. THEORIA, 23(2), 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1387/theoria.390
particularism, response-dependence, restricted particularism, values
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons License.