The pragmatics of normative disagreement

Book chapter


Finlay, Stephen. (2014). The pragmatics of normative disagreement. In In Fletcher, Guy and Ridge, Michael (Ed.). Having it Both Ways : Hybrid Theories and Modern Metaethics pp. 124 - 148 Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199347582.003.0006
AuthorsFinlay, Stephen
EditorsFletcher, Guy and Ridge, Michael
Abstract

[Extract] On their surface, moral and normative sentences appear descriptive. But what kinds of facts could they describe? Many have been drawn to the idea that normative words like ‘ought’ and ‘good’ are used to refer to relational properties, consisting in a relation to something like a standard, rule, desire, or end, which can vary between contexts. On my preferred view, to say that s ought to φ is
roughly to assert the proposition that some implicit end, e, is more likely to obtain if s φs than if s does anything else instead.

Page range124 - 148
Year01 Jan 2014
Book titleHaving it Both Ways : Hybrid Theories and Modern Metaethics
PublisherOxford University Press
Place of publicationUnited States
Edition1
SeriesOxford Moral Theory Series
ISBN978-0-19-934758-2
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199347582.003.0006
Web address (URL)https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/acu/detail.action?pq-origsite=primo&docID=3056365
Open accessPublished as non-open access
Research or scholarlyResearch
Publisher's version
License
All rights reserved
File Access Level
Controlled
Output statusPublished
Publication dates
Print2014
Publication process dates
Deposited05 Dec 2024
Additional information

© Oxford University Press 2014 All rights reserved.

Permalink -

https://acuresearchbank.acu.edu.au/item/911vz/the-pragmatics-of-normative-disagreement

Restricted files

Publisher's version

  • 3
    total views
  • 0
    total downloads
  • 3
    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
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
Confusion of Tongues : A Theory of Normative Language
Finlay, Stephen. (2014). Confusion of Tongues : A Theory of Normative Language Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199347490.001.0001
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