Against conditional obligation

Noûs 32 (1):37-53 (1998)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The crucial feature of obligation sentences to which the puzzles point is that such sentences, and evaluative sentences more generally, are defeasible. They may be warranted, given some information, only to be defeated by further information. A theory that recognizes this no longer needs to see conditional obligation as anything more than a simple combination of unary obligation and the conditional.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,219

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
316 (#60,935)

6 months
15 (#145,565)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Daniel Bonevac
University of Texas at Austin

Citations of this work

Supererogation and Conditional Obligation.Daniel Muñoz & Theron Pummer - 2022 - Philosophical Studies 179 (5):1429–1443.
Deontic logic.Paul McNamara - 2010 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Hyperintensionality and Normativity.Federico L. G. Faroldi - 2019 - Cham, Switzerland: Springer Verlag.

View all 18 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Modal Logic: An Introduction.Brian F. Chellas - 1980 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
Counterfactuals.David Lewis - 1973 - Foundations of Language 13 (1):145-151.
Counterfactuals.David Lewis - 1973 - Philosophy of Science 42 (3):341-344.
Deontic logic.G. H. von Wright - 1951 - Mind 60 (237):1-15.
I. deontic logic.G. H. von Wright - 1951 - Mind 60 (237):1-15.

View all 42 references / Add more references