Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 105 (3):403–409 (2005)
|Abstract||This paper deals with an aspect of the commitment-theoretic account of evaluative compounds that Simon Blackburn has recently offered. The main point of the paper is that the special account of disjunction is flawed because it fails to validate certain very simple patterns of inference. This point is brought out by considering two examples. A reply on behalf of Blackburn is considered, but it is shown that this reply is defective because it makes use of an unacceptable inference-rule. In the last section, the relatively technical point about disjunction is placed in a broader context. It is argued that without an acceptable account of disjunction, expressivism entails revisionism about everyday moral discourse|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Mark Lance & Philip Kremer (1996). The Logical Structure of Linguistic Commitment II: Systems of Relevant Commitment Entailment. [REVIEW] Journal of Philosophical Logic 25 (4):425 - 449.
Neil Sinclair (2008). Free Thinking for Expressivists. Philosophical Papers 37 (2):263-287.
Mark Schroeder (2010). How to Be an Expressivist About Truth. In Cory D. Wright & Nikolaj J. L. L. Pedersen (eds.), New Waves in Truth. Palgrave Macmillan.
Matthew Chrisman (2010). Expressivism, Inferentialism, and the Theory of Meaning. In Michael Brady (ed.), New Waves in Metaethics. Palgrave-Macmillan.
Neil Sinclair (2011). Moral Expressivism and Sentential Negation. Philosophical Studies 152 (3):385-411.
J. Adam Carter & Matthew Chrisman (2012). Is Epistemic Expressivism Incompatible with Inquiry? Philosophical Studies 159 (3):323-339.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads18 ( #74,513 of 722,840 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,917 of 722,840 )
How can I increase my downloads?