David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Philosophical Logic 2 (2):197 - 211 (1973)
It has been maintained that we are quite able to express (1*)–(4*) without the introduction of a dyadic deontic operator, provided only that we supply our standard deontic logic with a stronger conditional than material implication. The lesson learned from Chisholm's paradox has been the eminently convincing, indeed obvious, one: that what we ought to do is not determined by what is the case in some perfect world, but by what is the case in the best world we can ‘get to’ from this world. What we ought to do depends upon how we are circumstanced
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
James E. Tomberlin (1989). Obligation, Conditionals, and the Logic of Conditional Obligation. Philosophical Studies 55 (1):81 - 92.
Ilkka Niiniluoto (1986). Hypothetical Imperatives and Conditional Obligations. Synthese 66 (1):111 - 133.
Judith Wagner Decew (1981). Conditional Obligation and Counterfactuals. Journal of Philosophical Logic 10 (1):55 - 72.
Mark Vorobej (1983). The Robbery Paradox. Dialogue 22 (03):433-440.
Similar books and articles
Martine Nida-Rumelin (1997). Chisholm on Personal Identity and the Attribution of Experiences. In Lewis Edwin Hahn (ed.), The Philosophy of Roderick M. Chisholm. Chicago: Open Court.
Neil Thomason (1992). Some Problems with Chisholm and Potter's Solution to the Paradox of Analysis. Metaphilosophy 23 (1-2):132-138.
RoderickM Chisholm & Richard C. Potter (1981). The Paradox of Analysis: A Solution. Metaphilosophy 12 (1):1-6.
Richard C. Potter & Roderick M. Chisholm (1981). The Paradox of Analysis: A Solution. Metaphilosophy 12 (1):1–6.
Ian Niles (1997). Rescuing the Counterfactual Solution to Chisholm's Paradox. Philosophia 25 (1-4):351-371.
Jaegwon Kim (1997). Chisholm on Intentionality: De Se, de Re, and de Dicto. In Lewis Edwin Hahn (ed.), The Philosophy of Roderick M. Chisholm. Chicago: Open Court.
Graeme Forbes (1984). Two Solutions to Chisholm's Paradox. Philosophical Studies 46 (2):171 - 187.
Matthew Davidson (2009). On Roderick Chisholm. Philosophy Now 75:32-33.
Marcelo E. Coniglio & Newton M. Peron (2009). A Paraconsistentist Approach to Chisholm's Paradox. Principia 13 (3):299-326.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads8 ( #195,991 of 1,689,225 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #183,788 of 1,689,225 )
How can I increase my downloads?