Philosophy Lexicon of Arguments

Search  
 
Author Item Excerpt Meta data

 
Books on Amazon
II 327
Implication/Conditional/Ethics/Action/Nozick: Problem: a conditional is no implication (entailment): therefore, when a situation is logically possible in which A is wrong, this does not show the falsity of: (3) If A was not correct, S would not do A - and the logical possibility that A is mandatory, and the person still does not dot it, does not show the falsity of: (4) If A was mandatory, S would do A. - E.g. that someone is corrupt does not mean that one offered him enough. - (see above: brains in a vat/Knowledge, chair) -> Non-closedness.

_____________
Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution.

No I
R. Nozick
Philosophical Explanations Oxford 1981

No II
R., Nozick
The Nature of Rationality 1994


> Counter arguments against Nozick
> Counter arguments in relation to Conditional



> Suggest your own contribution | > Suggest a correction | > Export as BibTeX Datei
 
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2017-06-23