Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Multiplex semantics for deontic logic.Lou Goble - 2000 - Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic 5 (2):113-134.
    This multiplex semantics incorporates multiple relations of deontic accessibility or multiple preference rankings on alternative worlds to represent distinct normative standards. This provides a convenient framework for deontic logic that allows conflicts of obligation, due either to conflicts between normative standards or to incoherence within a single standard. With the multiplex structures, two general senses of "ought" may be distinguished, an indefinite sense under which something is obligatory when it is enjoined by some normative standard and a core sense for (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • The meaning of 'ought'.Ralph Wedgwood - 2006 - In Russ Shafer-Landau (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics: Volume 1. Clarendon Press. pp. 127-160.
    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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   58 citations  
  • But what should I do?Sven Ove Hansson - 1999 - Philosophia 27 (3-4):433-440.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • A new representation theorem for contranegative deontic logic.Sven Ove Hanson - 2004 - Studia Logica 77 (1):1 - 7.
    The logic of an ought operator O is contranegative with respect to an underlying preference relation if it satisfies the property Op & (¬p)(¬q) Oq. Here the condition that is interpolative ((p (pq) q) (q (pq) p)) is shown to be necessary and sufficient for all -contranegative preference relations to satisfy the plausible deontic postulates agglomeration (Op & OqO(p&q)) and disjunctive division (O(p&q) Op Oq).
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Still Not ‘Good’ in Terms of ‘Better’.Johan E. Gustafsson - 2015 - Noûs 50 (4):854-864.
    Erik Carlson puts forward a new way of defining monadic value predicates, such as ‘good’, in terms of dyadic value relations, such as ‘better’. Earlier definitions of this kind have the unwanted feature that they rule out some reasonable axiologies by conceptual fiat. Carlson claims that his definitions do not have this drawback. In this paper, I argue that they do.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations