Implicating without intending on the Gricean account of implicature

Lassiter, Charles

doi:10.1386/ejpc.4.2.199_1

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is an uncontroversial understanding of Grice. For a more controversial understanding of Grice, according to which implicature can be unintentional (and which I discuss in Section 4), see Lassiter (2012). 19.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

When is the Promotion of Prenatal Testing for Selective Abortion Wrong?

Gomez¹

2020

Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Medical professionals routinely offer prenatal genetic testing services to their expecting patients. Some bioethicists believe that when these professionals promote the use of such testing for abortion on grounds of disability, they express a devaluing message to and about extant disabled people. Supporters of this expressivist objection further maintain that, in expressing such a message, medical professionals reinforce negative attitudes about extant disabled people and thereby further stigmatize them. But while the expressivist objection has received quite a bit of support from disability rights theorists-in part because of its intuitive appeal-its current formulation suffers from various shortcomings that render it implausible. By invoking tools from the philosophy of language, I present the expressivist objection*: an improved and distinctive formulation of the expressivist objection that preserves some of its core insights. According to this improved formulation, the promotion of prenatal testing for selective abortion can at least sometimes be wrong.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Note that although philosophers of language tend to agree that implicatures are intentional, at least some philosophers think that implicatures can also be unintentional. See, for example, Lassiter (2012). 27.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%