Two Philosophies of Needs

Polish Journal of Philosophy 9 (1):33-50 (2015)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Instrumentalists about need believe that all needs are instrumental, i.e., ontologically dependent upon ends, goals or purposes. Absolutists view some needs as non-instrumental. The aims of this article are: clearly to characterize the instrumentalism/absolutism debate that is of concern (mainly §1); to establish that both positions have recent and current adherents (mainly §1); to bring what is, in comparison with prior literature, a relatively high level of precision to the debate, employing some hitherto neglected, but important, insights (passim); to show, on grounds not previously to the fore in the literature, that insofar as instrumentalism’s advocates have provided arguments for the position, these are unsound (§2); to argue against instrumentalism using a new dilemma concerning whether ‘end’, ‘goal’ and ‘purpose’ are interpreted in a mentalistic manner (§3); to elucidate the implications of the needs/need-satisfiers and preconditions/means distinctions for the debate (§4).
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
First archival date: 2016-07-07
Latest version: 2 (2016-12-19)
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
182 ( #39,533 of 72,563 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
9 ( #62,592 of 72,563 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.