David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Over the years, several philosophers have argued that deontic modals, like ‘ought’ and ‘should’ in English, and their closest equivalents in other languages, are systematically polysemous and context-sensitive. Specifically, one way in which these ‘ought’-concepts differ from each other is that some of these concepts are more “objective”, while others are more “subjective” or “information-relative”: when ‘ought’ expresses one of these more objective concepts, what an agent “ought” to do in a given situation may be determined by facts that neither the agent nor any of his friends and advisers either knows or is even in a position to know; when it expresses one of the more “subjective” concepts, what an agent “ought” to do is in some way more sensitive to the informational state that the agent (or his friends and advisers) find themselves in at the conversationally salient time. This essay first presents some linguistic evidence in favour of this view of ‘ought’, and then proposes a precise account of the truth-conditions of propositions involving these ‘ought’-concepts that will explain more clearly how exactly these concepts are related.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Alex Silk (2013). Evidence Sensitivity in Weak Necessity Deontic Modals. Journal of Philosophical Logic:1-33.
Similar books and articles
Holly M. Smith (2010). Subjective Rightness. Social Philosophy and Policy 27 (2):64-110.
Diane Jeske (2001). Friendship and Reasons of Intimacy. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63 (2):329-346.
Simon Robertson (2011). Epistemic Constraints on Practical Normativity. Synthese 181 (Supp.1):81-106.
Eric Vogelstein (2012). Subjective Reasons. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (2):239-257.
Thomas Nagel (1979). Subjective and Objective. In Mortal Questions. Cambridge University Press. 207-222.
V. Haksar (1981). Nagel on Subjective and Objective. Inquiry 24 (March):105-21.
Scott Forschler (2009). Truth and Acceptance Conditions for Moral Statements Can Be Identical: Further Support for Subjective Consequentialism. Utilitas 21 (3):337-346.
Holly M. Smith (2010). The Moral Clout of Reasonable Beliefs. In Mark Timmons (ed.), Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics, Vol. I. Oxford University Press.
Charles E. Jarrett (1977). Some Remarks on the 'Objective' and 'Subjective' Interpretations of the Attributes. Inquiry 20 (1-4):447 – 456.
Neil Mehta (2012). Exploring Subjective Representationalism. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 93 (4):570-594.
Gebhard Geiger (1995). Why Are There No Objective Values? A Critique of Ethical Intuitionism From an Epistemological Point of View. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 26 (1):35 - 62.
Pete Mandik (2000). Objective Subjectivity: Allocentric and Egocentric Representations in Thought and Experience. Dissertation, Washington University
Added to index2011-08-27
Total downloads124 ( #5,870 of 1,088,426 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #17,280 of 1,088,426 )
How can I increase my downloads?