Disagreeing about 'Ought'

Ethics 124 (3):589-597 (2014)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
In their ‘Metaethical contextualism defended’ (Ethics, 2010) Gunnar Björnsson & Stephen Finlay argue that metaethical contextualism - roughly, the view that 'ought' claims are semantically incomplete and require supplementation by certain parameters provided by the context in which they are uttered - can deal with two influential problems. The first concerns the connection between deliberation and advice (the 'practical integration problem'). The second concerns the way in which the expression ‘ought’ behaves in intra- and inter-contextual disagreement reports (the 'semantic assessment problem'). I argue that, while Björnsson & Finlay can deal with the first problem, they can’t deal with the second.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
MCKDAO
Revision history
Archival date: 2013-11-12
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2013-11-12

Total views
259 ( #10,396 of 38,049 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
11 ( #26,476 of 38,049 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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