Disagreeing about 'Ought'

Robert McKenna

Publications: Contribution to journalShort communicationPeer Reviewed

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 languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)589-597
Number of pages9
JournalEthics: An International Journal of Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy
Volume124
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2014

Austrian Fields of Science 2012

  • 603113 Philosophy

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Disagreeing about 'Ought''. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this