Pure Time Preference: Reply to Johansson and Rosenqvist

Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 97 (3):442-445 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Johansson and Rosenqvist reject our argument for the rational permissibility of pure time preferences (PTP). Johansson and Rosenqvist's main objection is that where two options, X and Y, have equal intrinsic value, there will be a reason to be indifferent between X and Y, and therefore a reason to not hold a PTP for X or Y. In this reply, we argue that if two options have equal intrinsic value, it does not follow that you have a reason to be indifferent. Rather, the two equally large intrinsic values cancel each other out, like two equal weights on kitchen scales.

Other Versions

reprint Lowry, Rosemary; Peterson, Martin (2017) "Pure Time Preference: Reply to Johansson and Rosenqvist". Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 98(1):442-445

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,388

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-07-07

Downloads
19 (#1,120,317)

6 months
5 (#702,808)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Rosemary Lowry
University of Adelaide (PhD)
Martin Peterson
Texas A&M University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Pure time preference.Rosemary Lowry & Martin Peterson - 2011 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (4):490-508.
Practical Reasoning.Gilbert Harman - 1999 - In Reasoning, meaning, and mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
‘Pure Time Preference’: Reply to Lowry and Peterson.Jens Johansson & Simon Rosenqvist - 2016 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 97 (3):435-441.

Add more references