Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. The Main Argument for Value Incommensurability (and Why It Fails).Stephen Ellis - 2010 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 46 (1):27-43.
    Arguments for value incommensurability ultimately depend on a certain diagnosis of human motivation. Incommensurablists hold that each person's basic ends are not only irreducible but also incompatible with one another. It isn't merely that some goals can't, in fact, be jointly realized; values actually compete for influence. This account makes a mistake about the nature of human motivation. Each value underwrites a ceteris paribus evaluation. Such assessments are mutually compatible because the observation that there is something to be said for (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • The Varieties of Instrumental Rationality.Stephen Ellis - 2008 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 46 (2):199-220.
    It is a mistake to think that instrumental rationality fixes a single standard for judging or describing actions. While there is a core conception of instrumental rationality, we appeal to different elaborations of that conception for different purposes. An action can be instrumentally rational in some sense(s) but not in others. As we learn more about behavior, it is possible to add useful elaborations of the core conception of instrumental rationality. In this paper, I propose a new elaboration based on (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Market hegemony and economic theory.Stephen Ellis - 2008 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 38 (4):513-532.
    It is central to standard economic theory that people act on their interests. People are interested in a variety of things, so a range of values should influence market behavior. When engaged in commerce, however, people generally act for personal gain; the influence of other values usually just disappears in the marketplace. What is missing from the standard account is that people often act on proper subsets of their interests. Economics can, however, be extended to capture this insight. Key Words: (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Self-interest and the modernity of homo economicus.Valentin Cojanu - 2017 - International Journal of Social Economics 44 (5).
    Criticism directed at neoclassical economics has failed to replace it with a similar grand theory. The author argues that one possible explanation may lie in the failure of economists to formulate an opinion as to the philosophical foundations of the author’s object of study. The paper aims to discuss this issue. The argument proceeds in two steps. First, the authors review the prevailing philosophical view of “the self-interest theory (S)”, which is one of the most powerful constituents of today’s economics, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark