Ought of order

Book chapter


Finlay, Stephen. (2016). Ought of order. In In N. Charlow and M. Chrisman (Ed.). Deontic Modality pp. 169 - 199 Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198717928.001.0001
AuthorsFinlay, Stephen
EditorsN. Charlow and M. Chrisman
Abstract

Stephen Finlay argues in this chapter that Angelika Kratzer’s influential introduction of an ordering source parameter into the semantics for natural language modals was a mistake, at least for English normative modals such as ‘ought’. A simpler semantics in a dyadic framework, motivated by the need for a satisfactory treatment of instrumental (or ‘anankastic’) conditionals, also provides the resources for a better accommodation of gradability and ‘weak necessity’, information-sensitivity, and conflicts, with three moves: (i) an end-relational analysis of normative modality, (ii) an analysis of ‘ought’ or ‘weak necessity’ in terms of most, and (iii) an appeal to the same pragmatic resources utilized by Kratzer. The chapter ends with metasemantic observations about what we should want from a semantics for ‘ought’.

Keywordsdeontic modal; Angelika Kratzer; end-relational theory; weak necessity; probability; information sensitivity; anankastic conditional; hypothetical imperative
Page range169 - 199
Year2016
Book titleDeontic Modality
PublisherOxford University Press
Place of publicationOxford, United Kingdom
ISBN9780198717928
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198717928.001.0001
Research GroupDianoia Institute of Philosophy
Publisher's version
File Access Level
Controlled
Permalink -

https://acuresearchbank.acu.edu.au/item/890v2/ought-of-order

Restricted files

Publisher's version

  • 68
    total views
  • 0
    total downloads
  • 1
    views this month
  • 0
    downloads this month
These values are for the period from 19th October 2020, when this repository was created.

Export as

Related outputs

What might but must not be
Finlay, Stephen and Lennertz, Benjamin. (2020). What might but must not be. Analysis. 80(4), pp. 647-656. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anaa022
A “good” explanation of Five Puzzles about Reasons
Finlay, Stephen. (2019). A “good” explanation of Five Puzzles about Reasons. Philosophical Perspectives. 33(1), pp. 62 - 104. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpe.12126
Defining normativity
Finlay, Stephen. (2019). Defining normativity. In In D. Plunkett, S. J. Shapiro and K. Toh (Ed.). Dimensions of Normativity: New Essays on Metaethics and Jurisprudence pp. 187 - 219 Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190640408.003.0009
Quasi-expressivism about statements of law: A Hartian theory
Finlay, Stephen and Plunkett, David. (2018). Quasi-expressivism about statements of law: A Hartian theory. In In J. Gardner, L. Green and B. Leiter (Ed.). Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law Volume 3 pp. 49 - 86 Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198828174.003.0002
Conceptual analysis in metaethics
Laskowski, Nicholas and Finlay, Stephen. (2017). Conceptual analysis in metaethics. In In T. McPherson and D. Plunkett (Ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Methaetics pp. 536 - 551 Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315213217-35
Disagreement lost and found
Finlay, Stephen. (2017). Disagreement lost and found. In In R. Shafer-Landau (Ed.). Oxford Studies in Metaethics; Volume 12 pp. 187 - 205 Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198805076.003.0008
Deontic modality today : Introduction
Finlay, Stephen and Schroeder, Mark. (2014). Deontic modality today : Introduction. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly. 95(4), pp. 421-423. https://doi.org/10.1111/papq.12043
One ought too many
Finlay, Stephen and Snedegar, Justin. (2014). One ought too many. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 89(1), pp. 102-124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2012.00646.x
One Ought Too Many
Finlay, Stephen and Snedegar, Justin. (2014). One Ought Too Many. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 89(1), pp. 102 - 124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2012.00646.x