Decision-theoretic relativity in deontic modality

Linguistics and Philosophy 41 (3):251-287 (2018)

Authors
Nate Charlow
University of Toronto, St. George Campus
Abstract
This paper explores the idea that a semantics for ‘ought’ should be neutral between different ways of deciding what an agent ought to do in a situation. While the idea is, I argue, well-motivated, taking it seriously leads to surprising, even paradoxical, problems for theorizing about the meaning of ‘ought’. This paper describes and defends one strategy—a form of Expressivism for the modal ‘ought’—for navigating these problems.
Keywords deontic modality  decision theory  expressivism
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10988-017-9211-1
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive
External links

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

Thinking How to Live.Allan Gibbard - 2003 - Harvard University Press.
Knowledge and Action.John Hawthorne & Jason Stanley - 2008 - Journal of Philosophy 105 (10):571-590.
Impassioned Belief.Michael Ridge - 2014 - Oxford University Press.

View all 58 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Grading Modal Judgement.Nate Charlow - forthcoming - Mind:fzz028.
Clause-Type, Force, and Normative Judgment in the Semantics of Imperatives.Nate Charlow - forthcoming - In Daniel Fogal Daniel Harris & Matt Moss (eds.), New Work on Speech Acts. Oxford University Press.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Decision Theory: Yes! Truth Conditions: No!Nate Charlow - 2016 - In Nate Charlow Matthew Chrisman (ed.), Deontic Modality. Oxford University Press.
Bayesian Expressivism.Seth Yalcin - 2012 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 112 (2pt2):123-160.
Dynamic Expressivism About Deontic Modality.William B. Starr - 2016 - In Nate Charlow Matthew Chrisman (ed.), Deontic Modality. Oxford University Press. pp. 355-394.
Metanormative Theory and the Meaning of Deontic Modals.Matthew Chrisman - 2016 - In Nate Charlow & Matthew Chrisman (eds.), Deontic Modality. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 395-424.
Agency and Obligation.John F. Horty - 1996 - Synthese 108 (2):269 - 307.
Deontic Modals and Probability: One Theory to Rule Them All?Fabrizio Cariani - forthcoming - In Nate Charlow & Matthew Chrisman (eds.), Deontic Modality. Oxford University Press.
Rationalization and the Ross Paradox.Benj Hellie - 2016 - In Nate Charlow & Matthew Chrisman (eds.), Deontic Modality. Oxford University Press. pp. 283--323.
Two Puzzles About Deontic Necessity.Dilip Ninan - 2005 - In J. Gajewski, V. Hacquard, B. Nickel & S. Yalcin (eds.), New Work on Modality, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Basic Action Deontic Logic.Alessandro Giordani & Ilaria Canavotto - 2016 - In O. Roy, T. Allard & W. Malte (eds.), Deontic Logic and Normative Systems. College Publications. pp. 80-92.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-02-24

Total views
201 ( #40,397 of 2,309,725 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
38 ( #20,451 of 2,309,725 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature