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
Upload history
Archival date: 2015-04-06
View other versions
Added to PP index
2009-06-14

Total views
793 ( #6,582 of 2,448,679 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
19 ( #32,666 of 2,448,679 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.