Perspectival representation and fallacies in metaethics

Publications: Contribution to journalArticlePeer Reviewed

Abstract

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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)379-404
Number of pages26
JournalCanadian Journal of Philosophy
Volume48
Issue number3-4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Austrian Fields of Science 2012

  • 603120 Philosophy of language

Keywords

  • ASSERTION
  • ATTITUDES
  • Allan Gibbard
  • David Lewis
  • EXPRESSIVISM
  • FREGE-GEACH PROBLEM
  • Frege-Geach Problem
  • Mark Schroeder
  • NEGATION
  • Nicholas Unwin
  • Perspectival content
  • RELATIVISM
  • TRUTH
  • centred content
  • content
  • metaethics
  • representation
  • representational content

Cite this