Switch to: References

Citations of:

Disagreeing about 'Ought'

Ethics 124 (3):589-597 (2014)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Hybrid Theory of Legal Statements and Disagreement on the Content of Law.M. Wieczorkowski - manuscript
    Disagreement is a pervasive feature of human discourse and a crucial force in shaping our social reality. From mundane squabbles about matters of taste to high-stakes disputes about law and public policy, the way we express and navigate disagreement plays a central role in both our personal and political lives. Legal discourse, in particular, is rife with disagreement - it is the very bread and butter of courtroom argument and legal scholarship alike. Consider a debate between two legal philosophers, Ronald (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Hyperintensionality and Normativity.Federico L. G. Faroldi - 2019 - Cham, Switzerland: Springer Verlag.
    Presenting the first comprehensive, in-depth study of hyperintensionality, this book equips readers with the basic tools needed to appreciate some of current and future debates in the philosophy of language, semantics, and metaphysics. After introducing and explaining the major approaches to hyperintensionality found in the literature, the book tackles its systematic connections to normativity and offers some contributions to the current debates. The book offers undergraduate and graduate students an essential introduction to the topic, while also helping professionals in related (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Ought-Implies-Can in Context.Darren Bradley - 2024 - Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy 11.
    If you ought to do something, does it follow that you are able to do it? The Kantian thesis that ought-implies-can seems intuitive and is widely accepted. Nevertheless, there are several powerful purported counterexamples. In this paper I will apply an independently motivated contextualism about ‘ought’ to make sense of the intuitions on both sides of the argument. Contextualism explains why ought-implies-can seems compelling despite being false in many contexts. The result will be that philosophers cannot in general appeal to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Disagreeing about who we are.Sebastian Köhler - 2020 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 63 (2):185-208.
    One argument that has been suggested for conventionalism about personal identity is that it captures that certain disagreements about personal identity seem irresolvable, without being committed to the view that these disagreements are merely verbal. In this paper, I will take the considerations about disagreement used to motivate conventionalism seriously. However, I will use them to motivate a very different, novel, and as yet unexplored view about personal identity. This is the view that personal identity is a non-representational concept, the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation