Disagreeing about 'ought'

McKenna, R (2014) Disagreeing about 'ought' Ethics, 124 (3). pp. 589-597. ISSN 0014-1704, 1539-297X

Text Disagreeing About 'Ought' FINAL.pdf - Author Accepted Manuscript Download (150kB)

Abstract

In "Metaethical Contextualism Defended," Gunnar Björnsson and Stephen Finlay argue that metaethical contextualism-the view that 'ought' claims are semantically incomplete and require supplementation by parameters provided by the context in which they are uttered-can deal with two influential problems. The first concerns the connection between deliberation and advice (the 'practical integration problem'). The second concerns the way in which the expression 'ought' behaves in intra- and intercontextual disagreement reports (the 'semantic assessment problem'). I argue that, while Björnsson and Finlay can deal with the first problem, they can't deal with the second. © 2014 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.

Item Type:	Article
Uncontrolled Keywords:	5003 Philosophy, 50 Philosophy and Religious Studies
Depositing User:	Symplectic Admin
Date Deposited:	12 Sep 2018 15:39
Last Modified:	24 Jan 2026 01:47
DOI:	10.1086/674842
Related Websites:	Author Publisher
URI:	https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/id/eprint/3026176
Disclaimer:	The University of Liverpool is not responsible for content contained on other websites from links within repository metadata. Please contact us if you notice anything that appears incorrect or inappropriate.