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.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 589-597 |
Number of pages | 9 |
Journal | Ethics: An International Journal of Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy |
Volume | 124 |
Issue number | 3 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 1 Apr 2014 |
Austrian Fields of Science 2012
- 603113 Philosophy