Metaethical Contextualism Defended

Ethics 121 (1):7-36 (2010)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
We defend a contextualist account of deontic judgments as relativized both to (i) information and to (ii) standards or ends, against recent objections that turn on practices of moral disagreement. Kolodny & MacFarlane argue that information-relative contextualism cannot accommodate the connection between deliberation and advice; we suggest in response that they misidentify the basic concerns of deliberating agents. For pragmatic reasons, semantic assessments of normative claims sometimes are evaluations of propositions other than those asserted. Weatherson, Schroeder and others have raised parallel objections to standard-relative contextualism; we argue for a parallel solution.
Keywords
No keywords specified (fix it)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
FINMCD-2
Revision history
Archival date: 2015-04-06
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Flexible Contextualism About Deontic Modals: A Puzzle About Information-Sensitivity.J. L. Dowell - 2013 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 56 (2-3):149-178.
Moral Disagreement and Moral Semantics.Khoo, Justin & Knobe, Joshua

View all 23 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index
2009-06-14

Total views
537 ( #3,845 of 37,265 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
23 ( #15,305 of 37,265 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.