Disagreeing about 'Ought'

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

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.

Author's Profile

Robin McKenna
University of Liverpool

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-12

Downloads
504 (#29,792)

6 months
41 (#80,729)

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?