Perspectival representation and fallacies in metaethics

Veröffentlichungen: Beitrag in FachzeitschriftArtikelPeer Reviewed


The prevailing theoretical framework for theorising about representation construes all representation as involving objective representational contents. This classic framework has tended to drive philosophers either to claim that evaluative judgements are representations and therefore objective, or else to claim that evaluative judgements are not really representations, because they are not objective. However, a more general, already well-explored framework is available, which will allow theorists to treat evaluative judgements as full-fledged representations (thus doing justice to their representational aspects) while leaving open whether they are objective. Such a more general conception of representational content is exemplified, e.g. by Lewis’s ‘centred contents’ and Gibbard’s framework of ‘contents of judgement’, thus it is not new. I shall start in §1 by introducing the more general framework of perspectival contents and then illustrate in §2 how awareness of it can help expose the fallaciousness of certain widely used forms of argumentation in metaethics.
Seiten (von - bis)379-404
FachzeitschriftCanadian Journal of Philosophy
PublikationsstatusVeröffentlicht - 2018

ÖFOS 2012

  • 603120 Sprachphilosophie