Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
distinction that philosophers of language make between de dicto and
de re . For instance, one can distinguish de re betterness from de dicto
betterness:
De re betterness: An outcome O1 is de re better for someone S, than
an alternative outcome O2, if and only if the actual S is better off in
O1 than in O2.
De dicto betterness: Comparing two outcomes O1 and O2, O1 is de
dicto better for S if and only if the thing that is S in O1 is better off in
O1 than the thing that is S in O2 is in O2. 6
In case of de dicto betterness, the S can be filled in by a descriptive
referring term, such as 'her next child' or 'the 35th president of the
United States'. Thus, in the case of the 14-year-old girl, one can say that
delaying conception is better than conceiving immediately because her
next child will be better off when she delays conception.
Very often making things de dicto better is not morally praiseworthy or
relevant in any way. One can make things de dicto better for someone,
without making them de re better. For instance, if I exchange my sick dog
for a healthy one, by disposing of the sick one and buying a new one, I
have made things de dicto better for my dog: the being that is 'my dog'
after these actions is better off than the being that was 'my dog' before.
'My dog' in the de dicto sense is better off after the exchange. Arguably, it
is not a good thing that I made my dog better in that sense. However, in
other cases it might be appropriate to care about making things de dicto
better. So, the question is whether it can be shown that it is indeed de
dicto betterness (or worseness) that matters in non-identity cases.
It has been argued 7 (Wasserman 2008, 533) that it cannot be anyone's
duty to make sure that a certain role be filled by someone as well off
as possible - as opposed to making whoever fills that role as well off as
possible. However, we commonly - and, I think, correctly - apply the
notion of de dicto betterness in both ways. For instance, a GM of a basket-
ball team has the professional duty to benefit that team and to make sure
that the team is as good as possible. Doing that typically involves both:
selecting the best players, and providing coaches and training facilities
to the effect that the players that are part of the team at any given time
be as good as possible. That means the GM's duty is to make the team
better in the de dicto sense. This may be achieved by making things de re
worse for some or even all of the players, whom she may throw out of
the team and replace by better players.
The question that interests us here is which notion of betterness
should be applied in non-identity cases. Non-identity cases confront us
Search WWH ::




Custom Search