Relativism and Monadic Truth

Cappelen, Herman; Hawthorne, John

doi:10.1093/analys/anq096

Cited by 102 publications

(119 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

118

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But we can construct structurally identical scenarios involving moral attitudes, such as a dispute between a "Government House" Utilitarian who opposes invocation of genuine principles of morality in ordinary discourse, and a regular (transparency-favoring) Utilitarian. 25 A distinction due to Cappelen & Hawthorne 2009. This focus is rejected in favor of state disagreements by (ironically) the account that most explicitly embraces the metalinguistic label, that of Plunkett and Sundell (2013: 10-11), precisely for the kinds of extensional issues raised above.…”

Section: The Case Against Mldmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disagreement Lost and Found

Finlay¹

2017

Oxford Scholarship Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to contextualist and other content-relativist views in metaethics, different speakers use the same moral and normative sentences to say different things. These views face a classic problem of Lost Disagreement, which they attempt to solve by identifying pragmatic, non-content-based kinds of disagreement. This paper critically compares two broad strategies of this kind, (1) quasi-expressivist views that analyze disagreement over whether S ought to do A in terms of conflicting attitudes toward S doing A, and (2) metalinguistic views that analyze such disagreement in terms of conflicting attitudes toward how to talk about S's doing A. While the main objection to quasi-expressivist views (concerning the felicity of semantic negation markers like 'wrong', 'incorrect', and 'false') fails, objections to metalinguistic views are argued to be decisive. Content-relativists should be quasi-expressivists about fundamental normative disagreement.Consider the following, familiar metaethical view: Content-Relativism:Different speakers use the same moral sentences, e.g. of the

show abstract

Section: The Case Against Mldmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disagreement Lost and Found

Finlay¹

2017

Oxford Scholarship Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another use of predicates of taste that contextualists (e.g., Glanzberg 2007;Cappelen and Hawthorne 2009;Huvenes 2012) have mentioned in connection with the challenge from disagreement is what could be called a 'group' or 'collective' use. A speaker uses a predicate of taste collectively if she is taking on the point of view of a group/collective.…”

Section: Collective Usesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another use of predicates of taste that contextualists (e.g., Stojanovic 2007;Glanzberg 2007;Cappelen and Hawthorne 2009;Moltmann 2010;Snyder 2013) have drawn attention to is known as their 'generic' use. A speaker uses a predicate of taste generically if she has in mind what is generally, or usually, considered to be the case among the members of a (contextually determined) group.…”

Section: Generic Usesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7 Since Cappelen and Hawthorne (2009) it is customary to distinguish between two senses of disagreement: as activity and as state. Two people can be in disagreement without ever talking to each other -for example, by being in mental states that could be characterized by contradictory contents.…”

Section: The Many Uses Of Predicates Of Taste and The Challenge From mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Many Uses of Predicates of Taste and the Challenge from Disagreement

Zeman

2016

Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In the debate between contextualism and relativism about predicates of taste, the challenge from disagreement (the objection that contextualism cannot account for disagreement in ordinary exchanges involving such predicates) has played a central role. This paper investigates one way of answering the challenge consisting on appeal to certain, less focused on, uses of predicates of taste. It argues that the said thread is unsatisfactory, in that it downplays certain exchanges that constitute the core disagreement data. Additionally, several arguments to the effect that the exchanges in question don't amount to disagreement are considered and rejected.

show abstract

“…These include, inter alia, binding (Partee, 1989;von Fintel, 1994;Stanley and Szabó, 2000;Stanley, 2002), optionality (Recanati, 2004), control (Bhatt and Pancheva, 2006), sluicing (Merchant, 2001), and collection (Cappelen and Lepore, 2006;Cappelen and Hawthorne, 2009). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%