Classically, vagueness has been considered something bad. It leads to the Sorites paradox, borderline cases, and the (apparent) violation of the logical principle of bivalence. Nevertheless, there have always been scholars claiming that vagueness is also valuable. Many have pointed out that we could not communicate as successfully or efficiently as we do if we would not use vague language. Indeed, we often use vague terms when we could have used more precise ones instead. Many scholars (implicitly or explicitly) assume that we do so because their vagueness has a positive function. But how and in what sense can vagueness be said to have a function or value? This paper is an attempt to give an answer to this question. After clarifying the concepts of vagueness and value, it examines nine arguments for the value of vagueness, which have been discussed in the literature. The (negative) result of this examination is, however, that there is not much reason to believe that vagueness has a value or positive function at all because none of the arguments is conclusive. A tenth argument that has not been discussed so far seems most promising but rests on a solely strategic notion of function.

中文翻译：

---

模糊的价值是什么？

传统上，模糊性被认为是不好的。它导致了 Sorites 悖论、边缘情况以及（明显）违反二价逻辑原则。尽管如此，一直有学者声称模糊性也很有价值。许多人指出，如果我们不使用模糊的语言，我们就无法像现在这样成功或有效地进行交流。事实上，当我们可以使用更精确的术语来代替时，我们经常使用模糊的术语。许多学者（含蓄地或明确地）假设我们这样做是因为他们的模糊性具有积极的作用。但是，如何以及在何种意义上可以说模糊性具有功能或价值？本文试图给出这个问题的答案。在澄清了模糊性和价值的概念之后，它检验了模糊价值的九个论证，这在文献中已经讨论过。然而，这项检查的（否定）结果是，没有太多理由相信模糊性具有价值或积极作用，因为没有一个论点是决定性的。到目前为止尚未讨论的第十个论点似乎是最有希望的，但它完全基于功能的战略概念。