Abstract
I argue that taking the Practical Conditionals Thesis (PCT) seriously demands a new understanding of the semantics of such conditionals.
Practical Conditionals Thesis: A practical conditional [if A][ought(B)] expresses B’s conditional preferability given A
Paul Weirich has argued that the conditional utility of a state of affairs B on A is to be identified as the degree to which it is desired under indicative supposition that A. Similarly, exploiting the PCT, I will argue that the proper analysis of indicative practical (as well as imperative) conditionals is in terms of what is planned, desired, or preferred, given suppositional changes to an agent’s information. Implementing such a conception of conditional preference in a semantic analysis of indicative practical conditionals turns out to be incompatible with any approach which treats the indicative conditional as expressing non-vacuous universal quantification over some domain of relevant antecedent-possibilities. Such analyses, I argue, encode a fundamental misunderstanding of what it is to be best, given some condition. The analysis that does the best vis-à-vis the PCT is, instead, one that blends (i) a Context-Shifty account of indicative antecedents with (ii) an Expressivistic, or non-propositional, treatment of their practical consequents.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams E. W. (1975) The logic of conditionals: An application of probability to deductive logic. D. Reidel, Dordrecht
Blackburn S. (1984) Spreading the word. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Blackburn S. (1998) Ruling passions. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Bradley R. (1999) Conditional desirability. Theory and Decision 47: 23–55
Broome J. (1999) Normative requirements. Ratio 12: 398–419
Broome J. (2001) Normative practical reasoning. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 75: 175–193
Cariani, F., Kaufmann, M., & Kaufmann, S. (2013). Deliberative modality under epistemic uncertainty. Linguistics and Philosophy, 36, 225–259. doi:10.1007/s10988-013-9134-4.
Charlow, N. (2011). Practical language: Its meaning and use. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan. http://www.natecharlow.com/work/dissertation.pdf.
Charlow N. (2013a) What we know and what to do. Synthese 190: 2291–2323
Charlow, N. (2013b). Logic and semantics for imperatives. Journal of Philosophical Logic. doi:10.1007/s10992-013-9284-4.
Charlow, N. (2013c). The problem with the Frege-Geach problem. Philosophical Studies. doi:10.1007/s11098-013-0119-5.
Frankfurt H. (1971) Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. The Journal of Philosophy 68: 5–20
Gibbard A. (1990) Wise choices, apt feelings. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Gibbard A. (2003) Thinking how to live. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Gillies A. S. (2007) Counterfactual scorekeeping. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 329–360
Gillies A. S. (2009) On truth-conditions for If (but not quite only If). The Philosophical Review 118: 325–349
Gillies A. S. (2010) Iffiness. Semantics and Pragmatics 3: 1–42
Hájek A. (2012) The fall of ‘Adams’ thesis’?. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 21: 145–161
Hare, R. M. (1971). Wanting: Some pitfalls. In Practical inferences. New York: Macmillan.
Heim, I. (1983). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In M. Barlow, D. Flickinger, & M. Wescoat (Eds.), WCCFL 2: Second annual west coast conference on formal linguistics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Isaacs J., Rawlins K. (2008) Conditional questions. Journal of Semantics 25: 269–319
Jeffrey R. (1983) The logic of decision. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Joyce, J. (2000). Why we still need the logic of decision. Philosophy of Science, 67, S1–S13. http://www.jstor.org/pss/188653.
Karttunen, L. (1973). Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry, 4, 169–193. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177763.
Kaufmann, S. (2000). Dynamic context management. In M. Faller, S. Kaufmann, & M. Pauly (Eds.), Formalizing the dynamics of information. Stanford: CSLI Publications. http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/kaufmann/Papers/dcm.pdf.
Kaufmann, S., & Schwager, M. (2009). A unified analysis of conditional imperatives. In E. Cormany, S. Ito, & D. Lutz (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 19 (pp. 239–256). Ithaca: CLC Publications. semanticsarchive.net/Archive/TYzZWYyM/.
Kolodny, N., & MacFarlane, J. (2010). Ifs and oughts. Journal of Philosophy, 107, 115–143. http://johnmacfarlane.net/ifs-and-oughts.pdf.
Kratzer, A. (1981). The notional category of modality. In H. Eikmeyer & H. Rieser (Eds.), Words, worlds, and contexts (pp. 38–74). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Kratzer, A. (1991). Conditionals. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research (pp. 651–656). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Lewis D. (1973) Counterfactuals. Basil Blackwell, Malden
Lewis, D. (1976). Probabilities of conditionals and conditional probabilities. Philosophical Review, 85, 297–315. http://www.jstor.org/pss/2184045.
Moss S. (2012) On the pragmatics of counterfactuals. Noûs 46: 561–586
Portner, P. (2004). The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. In K. Watanabe & R. Young (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 14. Ithaca: CLC Publications. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mJlZGQ4N/.
Portner P. (2007) Imperatives and modals. Natural Language Semantics 15: 351–383
Rothschild, D. (2012). Expressing credences. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, CXII, Part 1, 99–114.
Rothschild, D., & Yalcin, S. (2012). On the dynamics of conversation. Ms. http://yalcin.cc/resources/DynamicsConv.pdf.
Sæbø, K. J. (2001). Necessary conditions in a natural language. In C. Féry & W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Audiatur Vox Sapientiae: A Festchrift for Arnim von Stechow. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Schwager, M. (2006). Conditionalized imperatives. In M. Gibson & J. Howell (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 16. Ithaca: CLC Publications. http://user.uni-frankfurt.de/~scheiner/papers/schwagerFEB07.pdf.
Silk, A. (2013). Evidence sensitivity in weak necessity deontic modals. Journal of Philosophical Logic. doi:10.1007/s10992-013-9286-2.
Stalnaker, R. (1968). A theory of conditionals. In N. Rescher (Ed.), Studies in logical theory (pp. 98–112). American philosophical quarterly monograph series 2. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stalnaker R. (1975) Indicative conditionals. Philosophia 5: 269–286
Starr, W. B. (forthcoming). A preference semantics for imperatives. Semantics and Pragmatics.
Swanson, E. (2006). Interactions with context. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Swanson, E. (forthcoming). The application of constraint semantics to the language of subjective uncertainty. Journal of Philosophical Logic.
Veltman F. (1996) Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25: 221–261
von Fintel, K. (2001). Counterfactuals in a dynamic context. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.) Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. http://mit.edu/fintel/fintel-2001-counterfactuals.pdf.
von Fintel, K., & Gillies, A. S. (2007). An opinionated guide to epistemic modality. In T. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Oxford studies in epistemology (Vol. 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://mit.edu/fintel/fintel-gillies-2007-ose2.pdf.
von Fintel, K., & Iatridou, S. (2005). What to do if you want to go to Harlem: Anankastic conditionals and related matters. Ms., MIT. http://mit.edu/fintel/www/harlem-rutgers.pdf.
von Fintel, K., & Iatridou, S. (2008). How to say ought in foreign: The composition of weak necessity modals. In J. Guèron & J. Lecarme (Eds.), Time and modality. Dordrecht: Springer.
von Wright, G. H. (1963). Norm and action: A logical inquiry. London: Routledge.
Williams, J. R. G. (2008). Conversation and conditionals. Philosophical Studies, 138, 211–223. doi:10.1007/s11098-006-9032-5.
Weirich P. (1980) Conditional utility and its place in decision theory. The Journal of Philosophy 77: 702–715
Yalcin S. (2007) Epistemic modals. Mind 116: 983–1026
Yalcin, S. (2011). Nonfactualism about epistemic modality. In B. Weatherson & A. Egan (Eds.), Epistemic modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yalcin S. (2012a) A counterexample to modus tollens. Journal of Philosophical Logic 41: 1001–1024
Yalcin, S. (2012b). Dynamic semantics. In G. Russell & D. Fara (Eds.), Routledge companion to philosophy of language (pp. 253–279). New York: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Charlow, N. Conditional preferences and practical conditionals. Linguist and Philos 36, 463–511 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-013-9143-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-013-9143-3