A very simple contextualist treatment of a sentence containing an epistemic modal, e.g. a might be F, is that it is true iff for all the contextually salient community knows, a is F. It is widely agreed that the simple theory will not work in some cases, but the counterexamples produced so far seem amenable to a more complicated contextualist theory. We argue, however, that no contextualist theory can capture the evaluations speakers naturally make of sentences containing epistemic modals. If (...) we want to respect these evaluations, our best option is a relativist theory of epistemic modals. On a relativist theory, an utterance of a might be F can be true relative to one context of evaluation and false relative to another. We argue that such a theory does better than any rival approach at capturing all the behaviour of epistemic modals. (shrink)

This book defends a form of ethical intuitionism, according to which (i) there are objective moral truths; (ii) we know some of these truths through a kind of immediate, intellectual awareness, or "intuition"; and (iii) our knowledge of moral truths gives us reasons for action independent of our desires. The author rebuts all the major objections to this theory and shows that the alternative theories about the nature of ethics all face grave difficulties.

Moral error theory of the kind defended by J. L. Mackie and Richard Joyce is premised on two claims: (1) that moral judgements essentially presuppose that moral value has absolute authority, and (2) that this presupposition is false, because nothing has absolute authority. This paper accepts (2) but rejects (1). It is argued first that (1) is not the best explanation of the evidence from moral practice, and second that even if it were, the error theory would still be mistaken, (...) because the assumption does not contaminate the meaning or truth-conditions of moral claims. These are determined by the essential application conditions for moral concepts, which are relational rather than absolute. An analogy is drawn between moral judgements and motion judgements. (shrink)

First published in 1903, this volume revolutionized philosophy and forever altered the direction of ethical studies. A philosopher’s philosopher, G. E. Moore was the idol of the Bloomsbury group, and Lytton Strachey declared that Principia Ethica marked the rebirth of the Age of Reason. This work clarifies some of moral philosophy’s most common confusions and redefines the science’s terminology. Six chapters explore: the subject matter of ethics, naturalistic ethics, hedonism, metaphysical ethics, ethics in relation to conduct, and the ideal. Moore's (...) simplicity of style and precise use of everyday language exercised an enormous influence on the development of analytic philosophy, and they contribute to the continuing resonance of his compelling arguments. (shrink)

Data about attitude reports provide some of the most interesting arguments for, and against, various theses of semantic relativism. This paper is a short survey of three such arguments. First, I’ll argue (against recent work by von Fintel and Gillies) that relativists can explain the behaviour of relativistic terms in factive attitude reports. Second, I’ll argue (against Glanzberg) that looking at attitude reports suggests that relativists have a more plausible story to tell than contextualists about the division of labour between (...) semantics and meta-semantics. Finally, I’ll offer a new argument for invariantism (i.e. against both relativism and contextualism) about moral terms. The argument will turn on the observation that the behaviour of normative terms in factive and non-factive attitude reports is quite unlike the behaviour of any other plausibly context-sensitive term. Before that, I’ll start with some taxonomy, just so as it’s clear what the intended conclusions below are supposed to be. (shrink)

This paper is a survey of recent ‘hybrid’ approaches to metaethics, according to which moral sentences, in some sense or other, express both beliefs and desires. I try to show what kinds of theoretical issues come up at the different choice points we encounter in developing such a view, to raise some problems and explain where they come from, and to begin to get a sense for what the payoff of such views can be, and what they will need to (...) do in order to earn that payoff. (shrink)

Predicates of personal taste (fun, tasty) and epistemic modals (might, must) share a similar analytical difficulty in determining whose taste or knowledge is being expressed. Accordingly, they have parallel behavior in attitude reports and in a certain kind of disagreement. On the other hand, they differ in how freely they can be linked to a contextually salient individual, with epistemic modals being much more restricted in this respect. I propose an account of both classes using Lasersohn’s (Linguistics and Philosophy 28: (...) 643–686, 2005) “judge” parameter, at the same time arguing for crucial changes to Lasersohn’s view in order to allow the extension to epistemic modals and address empirical problems faced by his account. (shrink)

This paper argues that truth values of sentences containing predicates of “personal taste” such as fun or tasty must be relativized to individuals. This relativization is of truth value only, and does not involve a relativization of semantic content: If you say roller coasters are fun, and I say they are not, I am negating the same content which you assert, and directly contradicting you. Nonetheless, both our utterances can be true (relative to their separate contexts). A formal semantic theory (...) is presented which gives this result by introducing an individual index, analogous to the world and time indices commonly used, and by treating the pragmatic context as supplying a particular value for this index. The context supplies this value in the derivation of truth values from content, not in the derivation of content from character. Predicates of personal taste therefore display a kind of contextual variation in interpretation which is unlike the familiar variation exhibited by pronouns and other indexicals. (shrink)

My thesis is that morality arises when a group of people reach an implicit agreement or come to a tacit understanding about their relations with one another. Part of what I mean by this is that moral judgments - or, rather, an important class of them - make sense only in relation to and with reference to one or another such agreement or understanding. This is vague, and I shall try to make it more precise in what follows. But it (...) should be clear that I intend to argue for a version of what has been called moral relativism. (shrink)

This paper advances a reductive semantics for ‘ought’ and a naturalistic theory of normativity. It gives a unified analysis of predictive, instrumental, and categorical uses of ‘ought’: the predictive ‘ought’ is basic, and is interpreted in terms of probability. Instrumental ‘oughts’ are analyzed as predictive ‘oughts’ occurring under an ‘in order that’ modifer (the end-relational theory). The theory is then extended to categorical uses of ‘ought’: it is argued that they are special rhetorical uses of the instrumental ‘ought’. Plausible conversational (...) principles explain how this end-relational ‘ought’ can perform the expressive functions of the moral ‘ought’. The notion of an ‘ought-simpliciter’ is also discussed. (shrink)

Philosophers of language and linguists tend to think of the interpreter as an essentially non-creative participant in the communicative process. There’s no room, in traditional theories, for the view that correctness of interpretation depends in some essential way on the interpreter. As a result, there’s no room for the possibility that while P is the correct interpretation of an utterance, u, for one interpreter, P* is the correct interpretation of that utterance for another interpreter. Recently, a number of theorists have, (...) for separate reasons, argued in favour of a radically different view of communication – a view in which the interpreter and her context play what should be thought of as a content-creating role. According to such views, natural languages contain what I’ll call interpretation sensitive terms: terms the correct interpretation of which varies across interpreters (or, more generally, contexts of interpretation).3 An interpretation sensitive sentence can have one content relative to one interpreter and another content relative to another interpreter. This paper is a development and (partial) defence of the view that interpretation sensitivity is ubiquitous in natural language. I call the view that there are interpretation sensitive terms content relativism. Before starting the discussion of content relativism, it is worth pointing out that recent attempts to develop semantically motivated versions of truth relativism should be seen as part of this trend of giving the interpreter a more active role. (shrink)

This book provides a sophisticated analysis of various types of moral relativism, showing how arguments both for and against them fail to account for the basic intuitions such theories were inteded to address. Streiffer then constructs a compelling alternative model of reasons for acting which avoids the pitfalls of theories earlier discussed.

In this paper, I exploit the parallel between epistemic contextualism and metaethical speaker-relativism to argue that a promising way out of two of the primary problems facing contextualism is one already explored in some detail in the ethical case – viz. expressivism. The upshot is an argument for a form of epistemic expressivism modeled on a familiar form of ethical expressivism. This provides a new nondescriptivist option for understanding the meaning of knowledge attributions, which arguably better captures the normative nature (...) of epistemic discourse than descriptivist competitors like invariantism and contextualism. (shrink)

Some forms of ethical relativism seem to endorse strict contradictions. Various forms of relativism are distinguished, And their vulnerability to such charges compared. Means of avoiding incoherence are considered. Relativistic justification seems either innocuous but nonrelativistic or else unintelligible. Relativistic analyses of moral judgments are implausible and seem required for no other purpose than to avoid charges of incoherence.

We give a precis of our book Insensitive Semantics.

★正向心理學經典之作 ★?心流之父?契克森米哈伊、?正向心理學之父?塞利格曼等高度評價，國際媒體齊聲推薦！ 啟動你我內在如大象般強大的力量 我們的「心」，是頭放任的大象； 我們的「智」，是具備掌控能力的騎象人， 心與智往往意見相左，各行其是…… 如何破除人象的對峙、拉扯？ 如何引領大象找到人生幸福的方向？ 學會馭象，就能獲得 愛、工作、審美、管理、人際關係、靈性覺醒上的諸多能力！ 強納森．海德把人類思考了兩千多年的問題，歸結為十個假設，放在科學的天平上，探討到底哪些是真理，哪些是謬誤。他融合了心理學、哲學、倫理學、宗教以及人類學等學科知識，並且大量引用了古今中外的哲學、文學與宗 教中有關人心的看法，再用神經科學與社會心理學的研究成果來驗證關於古老的關於幸福的假設。 他認為，人的心理可分為兩半，一半像桀驁不馴的大象，另一半則是理性的騎象人，面對改變時，理智與情感的拉扯就像是「象與騎象人」。這種人象的對峙，不僅會影響我們的決策，也會削弱我們的幸福感。 當我們學會駕馭心中的大象，我們就整合了各個面向的自我，而能全心投入愛、工作、關係、智慧成長中，最終能騎著大象，去到自己心中嚮往的幸福天地。 各界推薦 有人說，尋找人生智慧，要從自己最意想不到的地方開始。 希望每位惜時如金的讀者都可以從《象與騎象人》這本智慧之作中收穫意想不到的感悟。本書無論哪個方面，都能為大家帶來裨益。──全球華人正向心理學協會主席、劍橋大學幸福研究院亞太主任 蘇德中 駕馭內在的力量並不容易，但它值得我們用一生探究和學習。──諮商心理師╱璞成心理學堂總監 蘇絢慧 我個人特別推薦第六章〈愛與依附〉及第九章〈靈性的覺醒〉，作者撰寫的方式具科學實證又能深入淺出，本書確為正向心理學經典之作。──高雄醫學大學正向心理學中心主任 吳相儀 要理解幸福，建議就從跟隨本書作者海德開始吧！──正向心理學之父 馬汀•塞利格曼（Martin E.P. Seligman） 這是一本重要的、可讀性特別強的作品，能給讀者帶來愉悅的享受。──心流之父米 哈里•契克森米哈伊（Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi） 這是一部令人欣喜的作品……是一部源於正向心理學運動、內容充實的智慧之作。──《自然》（Nature） 從來沒有哪本書能如此清晰、如此充滿智慧地展示出對人類境況的理解。──《衛報》（The Guardian） 這本書引人入勝、令人欣慰，充滿了人文關懷與情趣，它將古代文明的洞見與現代心理學知識巧妙地融合在了一起。──《泰晤士報》（The Times of London） 一項鼓舞人心、細緻入微的研究。 ──《人物》（People） 本書能夠引導我們把每一天過得更好，它的觀點新穎、嚴謹、令人鼓舞。──《圖書館雜誌》（ Library Journal ） 作者簡介 強納森．海德（Jonathan Haidt） 現居紐約市，是著名心理學家，在紐約大學史登商學院擔任倫理領導學教授，主要研究如何在組織中運用積極心理學和道德心理學，被稱為「21世紀最不該被忽視的心理學家」。 1992年獲得美國賓州大學社會心理學博士學位後，即於維吉尼亞大學任教十六年之久。自1999年，他活躍參與正向心理學相關的活動，並因而在2001年獲得「鄧普頓獎」（Templeton Prize），是正向心理學先鋒派領袖。 《象與騎象人》一書是他的思想精華，一出版就登上亞馬遜心理學類排行榜榜首，熱銷不墜，更榮獲來自媒體、學界、企業界的各方好評。 譯者簡介 李靜瑤 臺灣大學政治系國際關系組學士，輔仁大學翻譯學研究所碩士。譯有：《象與騎象人》《失竊的未來：生命的隱形浩劫》《億萬商戰》《60秒壓力管理》《百事達傳奇》等。.

By “epistemic modals,” I mean epistemic uses of modal words: adverbs like “necessarily,” “possibly,” and “probably,” adjectives like “necessary,” “possible,” and “probable,” and auxiliaries like “might,” “may,” “must,” and “could.” It is hard to say exactly what makes a word modal, or what makes a use of a modal epistemic, without begging the questions that will be our concern below, but some examples should get the idea across. If I say “Goldbach’s conjecture might be true, and it might be false,” (...) I am not endorsing the Cartesian view that God could have made the truths of arithmetic come out differently. I make the claim not because I believe in the metaphysical contingency of mathematics, but because I know that Goldbach’s conjecture has not yet been proved or refuted. Similarly, if I say “Joe can’t be running,” I am not saying that Joe’s constitution prohibits him from running, or that Joe is essentially a non-runner, or that Joe isn’t allowed to run. My basis for making the claim may be nothing more than that I see Joe’s running shoes hanging on a hook. (shrink)