Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-h6jzd Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-02-28T05:36:21.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hard Choices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2017

RUTH CHANG
RUTH CHANG*
Affiliation:
RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, NEW BRUNSWICKruthechang@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

What makes a choice hard? I discuss and criticize three common answers and then make a proposal of my own. Paradigmatic hard choices are not hard because of our ignorance, the incommensurability of values, or the incomparability of the alternatives. They are hard because the alternatives are on a par; they are comparable, but one is not better than the other, and yet nor are they equally good. So understood, hard choices open up a new way of thinking about what it is to be a rational agent.

Keywords

parityhard choicesincommensurabilityincomparabilitypractical reasonchoicecommitmentHybrid Voluntarismagencyrationalityself
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the American Philosophical Association , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , Spring 2017 , pp. 1 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © American Philosophical Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, E. (1993) Value in Ethics and Economics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Andreou, C. (2015) ‘Parity, Comparability, and Choice’. Journal of Philosophy, 62, 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, J. (1997) ‘Is Incommensurability Vagueness?’ In Chang, R. (ed.), Incommensurability, Incomparability and Practical Reason (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 67–89.Google Scholar
Chang, R. (1997) ‘Introduction’. In Chang, R. (ed.), Incommensurability, Incomparability and Practical Reason (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 1–34.Google Scholar
Chang, R. (2002a) Making Comparisons Count. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chang, R. (2002b) ‘The Possibility of Parity’. Ethics, 112, 659–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, R. (2005) ‘Parity, Interval Value, and Choice’. Ethics, 114, 331–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, R. (2009a) ‘Voluntarist Reasons and the Sources of Normativity’. In Sobel, David and Wall, Steven (eds.), Reasons for Action (New York: Cambridge University Press), 243–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, R. (2009b) ‘Incommensurability (and Incomparability)’. In La Follette, Hugh (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Ethics (New York: Blackwell), 2591–2604.Google Scholar
Chang, R. (2014) ‘Interview with Richard Marshall’. 3:AM Magazine. Available at: http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/the-existentialist-of-hard-choices/.Google Scholar
Chang, R. (2013a) ‘Commitments, Reasons, and the Will’. In Russ Shafer-Landau (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics (Oxford: University of Oxford Press), 8: 74–113.Google Scholar
Chang, R. (2013b) ‘Grounding Practical Normativity: Going Hybrid’. Philosophical Studies, 164, 163–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, R. (2016a) ‘Comparativism: The Grounds of Rational Choice’. In Lord, Errol and Maguire, Barry (eds.), Weighing Reasons (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 213–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, R. (2016b) ‘Parity, Imprecise Comparability, and the Repugnant Conclusion’. Theoria, 82, 182–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, R. (2016c) ‘Parity: An Intuitive Case’. Ratio, 29, 395–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, R. (n.d.) ‘Parity and Indeterminacy’. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Constantinescu, C. (2016) ‘Vague Comparison’. Ratio, 29, 357–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Sousa, R. (1974) ‘The Good and the True’. Mind, 83, 534–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enoch, D. (2011) ‘Giving Practical Reasons’. Philosopher's Imprint, 11, 1–22.Google Scholar
Espinoza, N. (2008) ‘The Small Improvement Argument’. Synthese, 165, 127–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauthier, D. (1997) ‘Resolute Choice and Rational Deliberation: A Critique and Defence’. Nous 31, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gert, J. (2004) ‘Value and Parity’. Ethics, 114, 492–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gert, J. (2015) ‘Parity, Preference and Puzzlement’. Theoria, 81, 249–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare, C. (2010) ‘Take the Sugar’. Analysis, 70, 237–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herman, B. (1996) The Practice of Moral Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, T. (2002) Human Welfare and Moral Worth: Kantian Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsieh, N. (2005) ‘Equality, Clumpiness and Incomparability’. Utilitas, 17, 180–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurka, T. (1993) Perfectionism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, C. (1996) The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, C. (2009) Self-Constitution: Agency, Identity, and Integrity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lukes, S. (1997) ‘Comparing the Incomparable: Trade-offs and Sacrifices’. In Chang, Ruth (ed.), Incommensurability, Incomparability, and Practical Reason (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 184–195.Google Scholar
McClennen, E. J. (1990) Rationality and Dynamic Choice. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messerli, M., and Reuter, K.. (2016) ‘Hard Cases of Comparison’. Philosophical Studies. Available at: doi:10.1007/s11098-016-0796-y.Google Scholar
Nakao, T., Osumi, T., Ohira, H., Kasuya, Y., Shinoda, J., and Yamada, J.. (2009) ‘Neural Bases of Behaviour Selection without an Objective Correct Answer’. Neuroscience Letters, 459, 30–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nakao, T., Ohira, H., and Northoff, G.. (2012) ‘Distinction Between Externally vs. Internally Guided Decision-Making: Operational Differences, Meta-Analytical Comparisons and Their Theoretical Implications’. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 6, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nussbaum, M. (1986) The Fragility of Goodness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. (1990) Love's Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Parfit, D. (2016) ‘Can We Avoid the Repugnant Conclusion?’ Theoria, 82, 110–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowicz, W. (2008) ‘Value Relations’. Theoria, 74, 18–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowicz, W. (2012) ‘Value Relations Revisited’. Economics and Philosophy, 28, 133–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowicz, W. (1995) ‘To Have One's Cake and Eat It, Too: Sequential Choice and Expected-Utility Violations’. The Journal of Philosophy, 92, 586–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radin, J. (1996) Contested Commodities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Raz, J. (1986) The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Raz, J. (1997) ‘Incommensurability and Agency’. In Chang, R. (ed.), Incommensurability, Incomparability and Practical Reason (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 110–28.Google Scholar
Sartre, J. P. (1947 [2007]) Existentialism is a Humanism. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Savage, L. (1954) The Foundations of Statistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Scanlon, T. (1998) What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Schoenfield, M. (2015) ‘Moral Vagueness is Ontic Vagueness’. Ethics, 126, 257–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoenfield, M. (2014) ‘Decision Making in the Face of Parity’. Philosophical Perspectives, 28, 263–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (1988) Moral Dilemmas. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stanley, J. (2005) Knowledge and Practical Interests. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman-Margalit, E., and Morgenbesser, S.. (1977) ‘Picking and Choosing’. Social Research, 44, 757–85.Google Scholar
Williams, R. (2016) ‘Angst, Indeterminacy and Conflicting Values’. Ratio 29 (4), 412–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar