Arbitrariness arguments turn on the claim that there is no ontologically significant difference between certain of the objects that conservatives do believe in and certain of the ones they don’t. This chapter shows how conservatives can identify ontologically significant differences in a wide range of cases. It argues that certain arbitrariness arguments can be defused by treating grammatically singular terms like ‘the Supreme Court’ as referentially plural, referring not to a single scattered object, but to nine objects (the nine justices), and shows that others can be defused by holding that the presence of creative intentions can make a difference to which objects exist.
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.