Disagreeing about ‘Ought’  

Oleh:

McKenna, Robin

Jenis: Article from Journal - ilmiah internasional
Dalam koleksi: Ethics: An International Journal of Social Political and Legal Philosophy vol. 124 no. 3 (Apr. 2014), page 589-597.
Topik: disagreement; Metaethical Contextualism Defended

Ketersediaan

Perpustakaan Pusat (Semanggi) Nomor Panggil: EE44 Non-tandon: 1 (dapat dipinjam: 0) Tandon: tidak ada

Lihat Detail Induk

Isi artikel

In “Metaethical Contextualism Defended,” Gunnar Björnsson and Stephen Finlay argue that metaethical contextualism—the view that ‘ought’ claims are semantically incomplete and require supplementation by parameters provided by the context in which they are uttered—can deal with two influential problems. The first concerns the connection between deliberation and advice (the ‘practical integration problem’). The second concerns the way in which the expression ‘ought’ behaves in intra- and intercontextual disagreement reports (the ‘semantic assessment problem’). I argue that, while Björnsson and Finlay can deal with the first problem, they can’t deal with the second.

Opini Anda

Klik untuk menuliskan opini Anda tentang koleksi ini!

Kembali