Conclusion
It appears that some relations may happen to be both defeasible and parti-resultant, relative to certain interesting reference classes. Confirmation is one of them, but, under several of the best available reconstructions of parti-resultantness, requirement is not. Moreover, parti-resultantness is not necessary for being defeasible, nor sufficient to assure it. So the conjecture by Ross and Chisholm that having the former property explains having the latter, especially where duty and requirement are concerned, turns out to be mistaken. It is probably only the persistent and deep-running ambiguity of parti-resultantness itself (uncovered above) that made the prospect of using it to account for defeasibility seem plausible.
Similar content being viewed by others
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Girill, T.R., Levenbook, B.B. The parti-resultantness of requirement: An explanation that failed. Philos Stud 37, 237–249 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00372445
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00372445