For many discussions and very helpful comments on earlier versions, I owe great thanks to Johan Brannmark, Erik Carlson, Sven Danielsson, Howard Sobel, Daniel Svensson, Frans Svensson, Michael Zimmerman, an anonymous referee, and in particular to Wlodek Rabinowicz and Toni Rønnow-Rasmussen.
Revisiting the Tropic of Value: Reply to Rabinowicz and Rønnow-Rasmussen*
Article first published online: 29 MAY 2007
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research
Volume 67, Issue 2, pages 412–422, September 2003
How to Cite
OLSON, J. (2003), Revisiting the Tropic of Value: Reply to Rabinowicz and Rønnow-Rasmussen. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 67: 412–422. doi: 10.1111/j.1933-1592.2003.tb00297.x
- Issue published online: 29 MAY 2007
- Article first published online: 29 MAY 2007
In this paper, I defend the view that the values of concrete objects and persons are reducible to the final values of tropes. This reductive account has recently been discussed and rejected by Rabinowicz and R0nnow-Rasmussen (2003). I begin by explaining why the reduction is appealing in the first place. In my rejoinder to Rabinowicz and R0nnow-Rasmussen I defend trope-value reductionism against three challenges. 1 focus mainly on their central objection, that holds that the reduction is untenable since different evaluative attitudes have, ontologically speaking, different objects. I grant that this may well be so, but argue that the objection is based on an unwarranted, loose reading of the notion ‘value for its own sake’. On the more reasonable strict reading, it is plausible to maintain that tropes are the sole ontological category that can properly be ascribed final value.