What might but must not be

Journal article


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
AuthorsFinlay, Stephen and Lennertz, Benjamin
Abstract

We examine an objection to analysing the epistemic ‘might’ and ‘may’ as existential quantifiers over possibilities. Some claims that a proposition “might” be the case appear felicitous although, according to the quantifier analysis, they are necessarily false, since there are no possibilities in which the proposition is true. We explain such cases pragmatically, relying on the fact that ‘might’-sentences are standardly used to convey that the speaker takes a proposition as a serious option in reasoning. Our account explains why it makes sense to utter these sentences despite their being literally false and why their falsity is easily missed.

Year2020
JournalAnalysis
Journal citation80 (4), pp. 647-656
PublisherOxford University Press
ISSN0003-2638
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anaa022
Scopus EID2-s2.0-85126598535
Research or scholarlyResearch
Page range647-656
Publisher's version
License
All rights reserved
File Access Level
Controlled
Output statusPublished
Publication dates
Online24 Jan 2021
Publication process dates
Deposited08 Jul 2022
Permalink -

https://acuresearchbank.acu.edu.au/item/8xx19/what-might-but-must-not-be

Restricted files

Publisher's version

  • 9
    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

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
Ought of order
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
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