{"title":"平等、无缺陷和相对主义:对赖特和法拉利的回应","authors":"Dan Zeman","doi":"10.1093/analys/anad107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Crispin Wright and Filippo Ferrari have accused relativism of not accounting for ‘parity’ – the idea that, when we argue over matters of taste, we take our opponents’ opinions to be ‘as good as ours’ from our own committed perspective. In this paper, I show that (i) explaining parity has not been taken to be a desideratum by relativists and thus they cannot be accused of failing to fulfil a promise; (ii) Wright’s and Ferrari’s reasons for claiming that parity should be a desideratum are unconvincing.","PeriodicalId":47773,"journal":{"name":"ANALYSIS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Parity, faultlessness and relativism: A response to Wright and Ferrari\",\"authors\":\"Dan Zeman\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/analys/anad107\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Crispin Wright and Filippo Ferrari have accused relativism of not accounting for ‘parity’ – the idea that, when we argue over matters of taste, we take our opponents’ opinions to be ‘as good as ours’ from our own committed perspective. In this paper, I show that (i) explaining parity has not been taken to be a desideratum by relativists and thus they cannot be accused of failing to fulfil a promise; (ii) Wright’s and Ferrari’s reasons for claiming that parity should be a desideratum are unconvincing.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47773,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ANALYSIS\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ANALYSIS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anad107\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ANALYSIS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anad107","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Parity, faultlessness and relativism: A response to Wright and Ferrari
Crispin Wright and Filippo Ferrari have accused relativism of not accounting for ‘parity’ – the idea that, when we argue over matters of taste, we take our opponents’ opinions to be ‘as good as ours’ from our own committed perspective. In this paper, I show that (i) explaining parity has not been taken to be a desideratum by relativists and thus they cannot be accused of failing to fulfil a promise; (ii) Wright’s and Ferrari’s reasons for claiming that parity should be a desideratum are unconvincing.
期刊介绍:
Analysis is the most established and esteemed forum in which to publish short discussions of topics in philosophy. Articles published in Analysis lend themselves to the presentation of cogent but brief arguments for substantive conclusions, and often give rise to discussions which continue over several interchanges. A wide range of topics are covered including: philosophical logic and philosophy of language, metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of mind, and moral philosophy.