What ought probably means, and why you can't detach it

37Citations
Citations of this article
40Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Some intuitive normative principles raise vexing 'detaching problems' by their failure to license modus ponens. I examine three such principles (a self-reliance principle and two different instrumental principles) and recent stategies employed to resolve their detaching problems. I show that solving these problems necessitates postulating an indefinitely large number of senses for 'ought'. The semantics for 'ought' that is standard in linguistics offers a unifying strategy for solving these problems, but I argue that an alternative approach combining an end-relational theory of normativity with a comparative probabilistic semantics for 'ought' provides a more satisfactory solution. © 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Finlay, S. (2010). What ought probably means, and why you can’t detach it. Synthese, 177(1), 67–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9640-7

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free