Abstracts
Abstract
This paper explores a novel metaethical theory according to which value judgments express conditional beliefs held by those who make them. Each value judgment expresses the belief that something is the case on condition that something else is the case. The paper aims to reach a better understanding of this view and to highlight some of the challenges that lie ahead. The most pressing of these revolves around the correct understanding of the nature of the relevant cognitive attitudes. It is suggested that the distinction between “dormant attitudes” and “occurrent attitudes” helps us to understand these conditional beliefs.
Résumé
Cet article explore une nouvelle théorie méta-éthique selon laquelle les jugements de valeur expriment les croyances conditionnelles des sujets qui les font. Chaque jugement de valeur exprimerait la croyance selon laquelle quelque chose est le cas à la condition que quelque chose d’autre le soit. L’objectif de cet article est de parvenir à une meilleure compréhension de ce point de vue et de souligner certaines de ses difficultés. La plus urgente d’entre elles concerne la compréhension adéquate de la nature des attitudes cognitives pertinentes. Nous suggérons que la distinction entre « attitudes dormantes » et « attitudes occurrentes » permettrait de mieux comprendre les croyances conditionnelles.
Appendices
Bibliography
- Adams, E. W., “Subjunctive and indicative conditionals”, Foundations of Language, vol. 6, no. 1, 1970, pp. 89-94.
- Audi, R., “The Concept of Believing”, Personalist, vol. 53, no. 1, 1972, pp. 43-62.
- Bradley, R., “A Defence of the Ramsey Test”, Mind, vol. 116, no. 461, 2007, pp. 1-21.
- Burgess J., “Why I am Not a Nominalist”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 24, no. 1, 1983, pp. 93-105.
- Geach, P. T, “Good and Evil”, Analysis, vol. 17, no. 2, 1956, pp. 33-42.
- Geach, P. T, “Assertion”, Philosophical Review, vol. 74, no 4, 1965, pp. 449-465.
- Grice, P., Studies in the Way of Words, Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 1989.
- Gärdenfors, P., “Belief revisions and the Ramsey test for conditionals”, Philosophical Review, vol. 95, no. 1, 1986, pp. 81-93.
- Hare, R. M., Language of Morals, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1952.
- Jackson, F., From Metaphysics to Ethics: A Defence of Conceptual Analysis, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1998.
- Leitgeb, H., “Beliefs in conditionals vs. conditional beliefs”, Topoi, vol. 26, no. 1, 2007, pp. 115-132.
- Lewis, D., “Probabilities of conditionals and conditional probabilities”, Philosophical Review, vol. 85, no. 3, 1976, pp. 297-315.
- Lewis, D., “Probabilities of conditionals and conditional probabilities II”, Philosophical Review, vol. 95, no. 4, pp. 581-589.
- Lindström, S. and Rabinowicz, W., “The Ramsey Test Revisited”, in G. Crocco, L. Fariñas del Cerro and A. Herzig (eds.), Theoria, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1995, pp. 131-182.
- Olson J., Moral Error Theory: History, Critique, Defence, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2014.
- Ramsey, F., “General Propositions and Causality”, in D. Mellor F., (ed.), Ramsey Philosophical Papers. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1929, pp. 145-163.
- Ridge M., “Ecumenical Expressivism: The Best of Both Worlds?”, in Shafer-Landau, R. (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics, Vol. 2., Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007.
- Schechter, J., “Explanatory Challenges in Metaethics”, in T. McPherson and D. Plunkett (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Metaethics, London, Routledge, forthcoming.
- Schroeder, M., “What is the Frege-Geach Problem?”, Philosophy Compass, vol. 3, no. 4, 2008, pp. 703-720.
- Strandberg, C., “Options for Hybrid Expressivism”, Ethical Theory of Moral Practice, vol. 18, no. 1, 2015, pp. 91-111.
- Walton K., Mimesis as Make-Believe, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1990.
- Williams B., Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, London, Fontana, 1985.
- Yablo S., “Go Figure: A Path Through Fictionalism”, Midwest Studies in Philosophy, vol. 25, no. 1, 2001, pp. 72-102.