Clumps and Pumps
Clumpiness, Resolution and Rational Choice
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12227977 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Asbjørn Steglich-Petersen (0000-0002-5023-3449, Aarhus University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2012 |
| Volume | 24 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 118-125 |
| Publication date | 2012-02-17 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Utilitas (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0953-8208 • E-ISSN: 1741-6183 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0953820811000367 |
| OpenAlex | W2075668680 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 5 |
It is widely held that the possibility of value-incomparability poses a serious threat to comparativism. Some comparativists propose to avoid this problem by supplementing the three traditional value relations with a fourth value relation, variously identified as ‘roughly equal’ or ‘on a par’. However, in a recent article in this journal, Nien-he Hsieh has proposed that the comparisons thought to require rough equality or parity could instead be understood in terms of the concept of ‘clumpiness’. Against this suggestion, Martin Peterson has argued that the concept of clumpiness allows agents to be exploited in money-pumps, thus removing the central appeal of the concept. In this note, I show that Peterson's argument fails to establish that the concept of clumpiness allows agents to be exploited in money-pumps
Appeal · Argument (complex analysis · Biology · Economics · Epistemology · Machine learning · Mathematical economics · Political science · Positive economics · Value (mathematics · Computer Science · Economic Theory and Institutions · Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics · Law · Mathematics · Philosophy · Philosophy and History of Science
| Highly cited | No |
|---|