Skip to main content
Log in

Conditional preferences and practical conditionals

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn S. (1984) Spreading the word. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn S. (1998) Ruling passions. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley R. (1999) Conditional desirability. Theory and Decision 47: 23–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broome J. (1999) Normative requirements. Ratio 12: 398–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broome J. (2001) Normative practical reasoning. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 75: 175–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbard A. (1990) Wise choices, apt feelings. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbard A. (2003) Thinking how to live. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillies A. S. (2007) Counterfactual scorekeeping. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 329–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillies A. S. (2009) On truth-conditions for If (but not quite only If). The Philosophical Review 118: 325–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillies A. S. (2010) Iffiness. Semantics and Pragmatics 3: 1–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hájek A. (2012) The fall of ‘Adams’ thesis’?. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 21: 145–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey R. (1983) The logic of decision. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Yalcin S. (2007) Epistemic modals. Mind 116: 983–1026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yalcin, S. (2012b). Dynamic semantics. In G. Russell & D. Fara (Eds.), Routledge companion to philosophy of language (pp. 253–279). New York: Routledge.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nate Charlow.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-013-9143-3

Keywords

Navigation