Logic for morals, morals from logic

Philosophical Studies 155 (2):161-180 (2011)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
The need to distinguish between logical and extra-logical varieties of inference, entailment, validity, and consistency has played a prominent role in meta-ethical debates between expressivists and descriptivists. But, to date, the importance that matters of logical form play in these distinctions has been overlooked. That’s a mistake given the foundational place that logical form plays in our understanding of the difference between the logical and the extra-logical. This essay argues that descriptivists are better positioned than their expressivist rivals to provide the needed account of logical form, and so better able to capture the needed distinctions. This finding is significant for several reasons: First, it provides a new argument against expressivism. Second, it reveals that descriptivists can make use of this new argument only if they are willing to take a controversial—but plausible—stand on claims about the nature and foundations of logic
Categories
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
KURLFM
Upload history
Archival date: 2012-10-11
View other versions
Added to PP
2010-05-22

Downloads
365 (#22,304)

6 months
12 (#55,572)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?