Oxford Studies in Metaethics 1:127-160 (2006)
|Abstract||In this paper, I apply the "conceptual role semantics" approach that I have proposed elsewhere (according to which the meaning of normative terms is given by their role in practical reasoning or deliberation) to the meaning of the term 'ought'. I argue that this approach can do three things: It can give an adequate explanation of the special connection that normative judgments have to practical reasoning and motivation for action. It can give an adequate account of why the central principles of deontic logic are correct. It can give an explanation of the precise ways in which the term 'ought' is systematically context-sensitive, so that the term expresses different (but systematically related) concepts in different contexts.|
|Keywords||Ought Semantics Deontic logic|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Richard Evans (2010). Introducing Exclusion Logic as a Deontic Logic. DEON 2010 10 (1):179-195.
Sven Ove Hansson (1990). Preference-Based Deontic Logic (PDL). Journal of Philosophical Logic 19 (1):75 - 93.
José Carmo & Andrew J. I. Jones (1996). Deontic Database Constraints, Violation and Recovery. Studia Logica 57 (1):139 - 165.
Andrew J. I. Jones & Marek Sergot (1992). Deontic Logic in the Representation of Law: Towards a Methodology. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1 (1):45-64.
Berislav Žarnić (2010). A Logical Typology of Normative Systems. Journal of Applied Ethics and Philosophy 2 (1):30-40.
Henry Prakken (1996). Two Approaches to the Formalisation of Defeasible Deontic Reasoning. Studia Logica 57 (1):73 - 90.
Lou Goble (2000). Multiplex Semantics for Deontic Logic. Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic 5 (2):113-134.
Ralph Wedgwood (2001). Conceptual Role Semantics for Moral Terms. Philosophical Review 110 (1):1-30.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads89 ( #7,900 of 549,087 )
Recent downloads (6 months)14 ( #4,559 of 549,087 )
How can I increase my downloads?