Dynamic Thoughts on Ifs and Oughts

Philosophers' Imprint 14:1-30 (2014)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
A dynamic semantics for iffy oughts offers an attractive alternative to the folklore that Chisholm's paradox enforces an unhappy choice between the intuitive inference rules of factual and deontic detachment. The first part of the story told here shows how a dynamic theory about ifs and oughts gives rise to a nonmonotonic perspective on deontic discourse and reasoning that elegantly removes the air of paradox from Chisholm's puzzle without sacrificing any of the two detachment principles. The second part of the story showcases two bonus applications of the framework suggested here: it offers a response to Forrester's gentle murder paradox and avoids Kolodny and MacFarlane's miners paradox about deontic reasoning under epistemic uncertainty. A comparison between the dynamic semantic proposal made in this paper and a more conservative approach combining a static semantics with a dynamic pragmatics is provided
PhilPapers/Archive ID
WILDTO-3
Revision history
Archival date: 2015-11-21
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
What We Know and What to Do.Nate Charlow - 2013 - Synthese 190 (12):2291-2323.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2014-10-07

Total downloads
181 ( #14,072 of 37,125 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
30 ( #11,847 of 37,125 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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