Butler's Stone
dc.contributor.author | Tilley, John J. | |
dc.contributor.department | Philosophy, School of Liberal Arts | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-08-23T17:29:43Z | |
dc.date.available | 2019-08-23T17:29:43Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2018-12 | |
dc.description.abstract | In the eleventh of Joseph Butler's Fifteen Sermons we find his best‐known argument against psychological hedonism. Elliott Sober calls that argument Butler's stone, and famously challenges it. I consider whether Butler's stone has value. In doing so I examine, and reject, two possible responses to Sober's objection. This involves, in part, discussing Lord Kames's version of the stone argument, which has hitherto escaped scholarly attention. Finally, I explain an important value of Butler's stone, which I have not found previously discussed. Butler's stone blocks an inference, persuasive to many people, which purports to show that we intrinsically desire only pleasure. | en_US |
dc.eprint.version | Author's manuscript | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Tilley, J. J. (2018). Butler’s Stone. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 99(4), 891–909. https://doi.org/10.1111/papq.12221 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1805/20545 | |
dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
dc.publisher | Wiley | en_US |
dc.relation.isversionof | 10.1111/papq.12221 | en_US |
dc.relation.journal | Pacific Philosophical Quarterly | en_US |
dc.rights | Publisher Policy | en_US |
dc.source | Author | en_US |
dc.subject | Joseph Butler | en_US |
dc.subject | psychological hedonism | en_US |
dc.subject | Butler’s stone | en_US |
dc.title | Butler's Stone | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |