David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 165 (2):295 - 315 (2008)
In this paper, illocutionary acts of commanding will be differentiated from perlocutionary acts that affect preferences of addressees in a new dynamic logic which combines the preference upgrade introduced in DEUL (dynamic epistemic upgrade logic) by van Benthem and Liu with the deontic update introduced in ECL II (eliminative command logic II) by Yamada. The resulting logic will incorporate J. L. Austin’s distinction between illocutionary acts as acts having mere conventional effects and perlocutionary acts as acts having real effects upon attitudes and actions of agents, and help us understand why saying so can make it so in explicit performative utterances. We will also discuss how acts of commanding give rise to so-called “deontic dilemmas” and how we can accommodate most deontic dilemmas without triggering so-called “deontic explosion”.
|Keywords||Command Illocutionary act Perlocutionary act Conventional effect Obligation Preference Deontic dilemma Deontic explosion Dynamic modal logic|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Teddy Seidenfeld (2000). The Independence Postulate, Hypothetical and Called-Off Acts: A Further Reply to Rabinowicz. [REVIEW] Theory and Decision 48 (4):319-322.
Stefanov Gheorghe (2010). Negative Acts. Analele Universitatii Bucuresti - Filosofie (LIX):3-9.
Nicholas Asher & Alex Lascarides (2001). Indirect Speech Acts. Synthese 128 (1-2):183 - 228.
Klaus Petrus (2006). Illokution Und Konvention, Oder Auch: Was Steckt Nun Wirklich Hinter Austins ,,Securing of Uptake"? Grazer Philosophische Studien 70 (1):101-126.
M. Kissine (2009). Illocutionary Forces and What is Said. Mind and Language 24 (1):122-138.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads19 ( #73,529 of 1,012,126 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,700 of 1,012,126 )
How can I increase my downloads?