Incommensurability, incomparability, and practical reason

By R. Chang. 1997

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. C. Spash
2. A. Vatn
3. Wlodek Rabinowicz
4. Chris Heathwood
5. E. Gómez‐Baggethun
6. Alex Y. Lo
7. J. Kenter
8. J. Gowdy

Citations in the corpus

• VALUE RELATIONS REVISITED (2012, background): “133 a fourth form of value comparability, along with the classical relations of better, worse, and equally-as-good-as (cf. Chang 1997, 2002a, 2002b).”
• Monism and Pluralism about Value (2015, background): “A challenge for this form of radical pluralism—and more generally for the idea that pluralism implies incomparability—is “nominal-notable comparisons” (Chang 1997: 14).”
• Transferring environmental value estimates: Issues and alternatives (2006, background): “These include concerns over whether values are commensurable (e.g., Chang, 1997; O'Neill, 1997; Martinez-Alier et al., 1998; Aldred, 2002); aggregation of values across individuals is possible or defensible, questioning the Kaldor–Hicks criterion; people have preferences for passive/indirect use…”