Cookies?
Library Header Image
LSE Research Online LSE Library Services

Deference, respect and intensionality

Mahtani, Anna (2016) Deference, respect and intensionality. Philosophical Studies, 174 (1). pp. 163-183. ISSN 0031-8116

[img]
Preview
PDF - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (411kB) | Preview
Identification Number: 10.1007/s11098-016-0675-6

Abstract

This paper is about the standard Reflection Principle (van Fraassen, 1984) and the Group Reflection Principle (Elga, 2007; Bovens & Rabinowicz, 2011; Titelbaum, 2012; Hedden, 2015). I argue that these principles are incomplete as they stand. The key point is that deference is an intensional relation, and so whether you are rationally required to defer to a person at a time can depend on how that person and that time are designated. In this paper I suggest a way of completing the Reflection Principle and Group Reflection Principle, and I argue that so completed these principles are plausible. In particular, they do not fall foul of the Sleeping Beauty case (Elga, 2000), the Cable Guy Paradox (Hajek, 2005) , Arntzenius' prisoner cases (Arntzenius, 2003), or the Puzzle of the Hats (Bovens & Rabinowicz, 2011).

Item Type: Article
Official URL: http://link.springer.com/journal/11098
Additional Information: © 2016 The Author © CC BY 4.0
Divisions: Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method
Subjects: B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > B Philosophy (General)
H Social Sciences > H Social Sciences (General)
Sets: Departments > Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method
Date Deposited: 13 Apr 2016 15:25
Last Modified: 20 Jun 2020 02:10
Funders: Leverhulme Trust
URI: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/66096

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics