David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In Nate Charlow & Matthew Chrisman (eds.), Deontic Modality. Oxford University Press. pp. 143-168 (2016)
This essay offers an account of the truth conditions of sentences involving deontic modals like ‘ought’, designed to capture the difference between objective and subjective kinds of ‘ought’ This account resembles the classical semantics for deontic logic: according to this account, these truths conditions involve a function from the world of evaluation to a domain of worlds (equivalent to a so-called “modal base”), and an ordering of the worlds in such domains; this ordering of the worlds itself arises from two further elements – a probability function and a value function – since this ordering ranks the worlds in accordance with the expected value of certain propositions that are true at those worlds. Thus, a proposition of the form ‘Ought (p)’ is true at a world of evaluation w if and only if p is true at all the top-ranked worlds in the domain assigned to w. This domain of worlds consists of metaphysically possible worlds, while the probability function is defined over a space of epistemically possible worlds (which may include metaphysically impossible worlds, such as worlds where Hesperus is not Phosphorus). Evidence is given that this account assigns the correct truth conditions to a wide range of sentences involving ‘ought’. Since these truth conditions involve both a domain of metaphysically possible worlds and a space of epistemically possible worlds, there are two corresponding kinds of conditional involving ‘ought’, depending on which space of worlds is restricted by the conditional. Finally, some objections that might be raised against this account are answered.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Alex Silk (2014). Evidence Sensitivity in Weak Necessity Deontic Modals. Journal of Philosophical Logic 43 (4):691-723.
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.
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. pp. 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.
Jon Williamson (2010). In Defence of Objective Bayesianism. Oxford University Press.
Pete Mandik (2000). Objective Subjectivity: Allocentric and Egocentric Representations in Thought and Experience. Dissertation, Washington University
Added to index2011-08-27
Total downloads217 ( #15,836 of 1,924,874 )
Recent downloads (6 months)13 ( #61,867 of 1,924,874 )
How can I increase my downloads?