‘Ought’-contextualism beyond the parochial

Philosophical Studies 176 (11):3099-3119 (2019)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Despite increasing prominence, ‘ought’-contextualism is regarded with suspicion by most metaethicists. As I’ll argue, however, contextualism is a very weak claim, that every metaethicist can sign up to. The real controversy concerns how contextualism is developed. I then draw an oft-overlooked distinction between “parochial” contextualism—on which the contextually-relevant standards are those that the speaker, or others in her environment, subscribe to—and “aspirational” contextualism—on which the contextually-relevant standards are the objective standards for the relevant domain. However, I argue that neither view is acceptable. I suggest an original compromise: “ecumenical contextualism”, on which some uses of ‘ought’ are parochial, others aspirational. Ecumenical contextualism is compatible with realism or antirealism, but either combination yields interesting results. And though it’s a cognitivist view, it is strengthened by incorporating an expressivist insight: for robustly normative usages of ‘ought’, the contextually-relevant standards must be endorsed by the speaker.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
First archival date: 2018-09-04
Latest version: 2 (2018-09-12)
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
352 ( #17,034 of 2,433,582 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
57 ( #12,649 of 2,433,582 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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