One Ought Too Many

Abstract
Some philosophers hold that „ought‟ is ambiguous between a sense expressing a propositional operator and a sense expressing a relation between an agent and an action. We defend the opposing view that „ought‟ always expresses a propositional operator against Mark Schroeder‟s recent objections that it cannot adequately accommodate an ambiguity in „ought‟ sentences between evaluative and deliberative readings, predicting readings of sentences that are not actually available. We show how adopting an independently well-motivated contrastivist semantics for „ought‟, according to which „ought‟ is always relativized to a contrast set of relevant alternatives, enables us to explain the evaluative-deliberative ambiguity and why the availability of these readings depends on sentential grammar
Keywords deontic modals  ought  contrastivism
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 11,493
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Roderick M. Chisholm (1964). The Ethics of Requirement. American Philosophical Quarterly 1 (2):147 - 153.
Matthew Chrisman (2012). 'Ought' and Control. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (3):433-451.

View all 33 references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Similar books and articles
Mark Schroeder (2011). Ought, Agents, and Actions. Philosophical Review 120 (1):1 - 41.
Paul Portner (2007). Imperatives and Modals. Natural Language Semantics 15 (4):351-383.
Ram Neta (2008). Undermining the Case for Contrastivism. Social Epistemology 22 (3):289 – 304.
Christine Tappolet, The Normativity of Evaluative Concepts. Philosophical Papers Dedicated to Kevin Mulligan.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2011-08-25

Total downloads

71 ( #20,591 of 1,102,515 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

12 ( #16,537 of 1,102,515 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.