IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/ecnphi/v18y2002i01p141-156_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rationality, comparability and maximization

Author

Listed:
  • Qizilbash, Mozaffar

Abstract

James Griffin (1986, 1997, 2000) and Ruth Chang (1997) have argued that alternatives (and values) can be comparable when it is neither true that one is better than the other, nor true that they are exactly equal in value. The relation which holds between them has gone under various names: the alternatives are ‘roughly equal in value’ (Griffin) or ‘on a par’ (Chang). In this paper, I give a formal analysis of this relation. This analysis allows us to distinguish between two slightly different notions of ‘at least as good as’. It is argued that the distinction between these notions is important for discussions of rationality, as is the distinction between ‘rough equality’ or ‘parity’ and incomparability.

Suggested Citation

  • Qizilbash, Mozaffar, 2002. "Rationality, comparability and maximization," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 141-156, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:18:y:2002:i:01:p:141-156_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0266267102001116/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Donna Rowen & Michael Dietrich, 2004. "Incorporating Ethics into Economics: Problems and Possibilities," Working Papers 2004006, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics, revised Jul 2004.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:18:y:2002:i:01:p:141-156_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/eap .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.