Search

Can mere conceptual competence explain the apriori? Many contemporary theorists believe that conceptual competence grounds apriori conceptual truths – and that this fact helps explain how thinkers can have apriori justification for accepting these truths and reasoning in accord with them. In this chapter, I'll examine several contemporary defenses of the conceptual approach to apriority in order to clarify their core commitments about the nature of concepts. The common thread, I'll argue, is a picture of concepts that combines a conceptual role model of conceptual competence with a rationalizing approach to the determination of semantic contents. My first aim is to show how this model of concepts has the potential to ground apriori truth and justification. My second aim is to show how the model involves problematic commitments about concepts, which can be avoided on an alternative relational model of concepts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to philosophical orthodoxy, the parties to moral or legal disputes genuinely disagree only if their uses of key normative terms in the dispute express the same meaning. Recently, however, this orthodoxy has been challenged. According to an influential alternative view, genuine moral and legal disagreements should be understood as metalinguistic negotiations over which meaning a given term should have. In this paper, we argue that the shared meaning view is motivated by much deeper considerations than its recent critics recognize, and that much would be lost in opting for the explanation of normative disputes as metalinguistic negotiations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our main focus in this paper is Herman Cappelen's claim, defended in Fixing Language, that reference is radically inscrutable. We argue that Cappelen's inscrutability thesis should be rejected. We also highlight how rejecting inscrutability undermines Cappelen's most radical conclusions about conceptual engineering. In addition, we raise a worry about his positive account of topic continuity through inquiry and debate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What does it take for lawyers and others to think or talk about the same legal topic—e.g., defamation, culpability? We argue that people are able to think or talk about the same topic not when they possess a matching substantive understanding of the topic, as traditional metasemantics says, but instead when their thoughts or utterances are related to each other in certain ways. And what determines the content of thoughts and utterances is what would best serve the core purposes of the representational practice within which the thought or utterance is located. In thus favoring a "relational model" in metasemantics, we share Ronald Dworkin's goal of explaining fundamental legal disagreements, and also his reliance on constructive interpretation. But what we delineate is a far more general and explanatorily resourceful metasemantics than what Dworkin articulated, which also bypasses some controversial implications for the nature of law that Dworkin alleged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Generalized Integration Challenge (GIC) is the task of providing, for a given domain of discourse, a simultaneously acceptable metaphysics, epistemology and metasemantics and showing them to be so. In this paper, we focus on a metaethical position for which (GIC) seems particularly acute: the brand of normative realism which takes normative properties to be (i) mind‐independent and (ii) causally inert. The problem is that these metaphysical commitments seem to make normative knowledge impossible. We suggest that bringing metasemantics into play can help to resolve this puzzle. We propose an independently plausible metasemantic constraint on reference determination and show how it can provide a plausible response to (GIC) for this brand of normative realism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we argue that ordinary judgments about core normative topics purport to attribute stable, objective properties and relations. Our strategy is first to analyze the structures and practices characteristic of paradigmatically representational concepts such as concepts of objects and natural kinds. We identify three broad features that ground the representational purport of these concepts. We then argue that core normative concepts exhibit these same features. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It's widely accepted that social facts about an individual's linguistic community can affect both the reference of her words and the concepts (or idiolect meanings) those words express. Theorists sympathetic to the internalist tradition have sought to accommodate these social dependence phenomena without altering their core theoretical commitments by positing deferential reference-fixing criteria. In this paper, we sketch a different explanation of social dependence phenomena, according to which all concepts are individuated in part by causal-historical relations linking token elements of thought. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is a response to Niklas Möller's ( Philosophical Studies, ) recent criticism of our relational ( Jazz) model of meaning of thin evaluative terms. Möller's criticism rests on a confusion about the role of coordinating intentions in Jazz. This paper clarifies what's distinctive and controversial about the Jazz proposal and explains why Jazz, unlike traditional accounts of meaning, is not committed to analycities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper sketches a right-maker account of normative practical reasons along functionalist lines. The approach is contrasted with other similar accounts, in particular John Broome's analysis of reasons as explanations of oughts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What does it take to count as competent with the meaning of a thin evaluative predicate like ‘is the right thing to do’? According to minimalists like Allan Gibbard and Ralph Wedgwood, competent speakers must simply use the predicate to express their own motivational states. According to analytic descriptivists like Frank Jackson, Philip Pettit and Christopher Peacocke, competent speakers must grasp a particular criterion for identifying the property picked out by the term. Both approaches face serious difficulties. We suggest that these difficulties derive from a shared background assumption that competence conditions must be explained in terms of a determinate conceptual role. We propose a new way of characterizing competence with evaluative terms: what's required for competence is participation in a shared epistemic practice with a term. Our approach, we argue, better explains the nature of evaluative inquiry and the extent of disagreement about evaluative questions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In an interesting recent exchange, Antti Kauppinen (2007) disagrees with Thomas Nadelhoffer and Eddy Nahmias (2007) over the prospects of experimental methods in philosophy. Kauppinen's critique of experimental philosophy is premised on an endorsement of a priori conceptual analysis. This premise has shaped the trajectory of their debate. In this note, I consider what foes of conceptual analysis will have to say about their exchange. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focuses on the fundamental challenges facing the sophisticated sentimentalist in providing a credible amount of the meaning of evaluative terms. Types of evaluative terms being used as examples by sentimentalists; Aspects of the meaning of an evaluative term; Moral evaluations on the level of fundamental difficulty for the sentimentalist program.

Antitheorists have assumed that the outcome of the method of reflective equilibrium is a comprehensive scheme of principles, which qualifies as a moral theory. The author's argument shows that metaethics matters for other fields of moral philosophy. It is tempting to think that such an abstract field, as metaethics will place few constraints on one's menu of options in moral epistemology or the theory/antitheory debates. A moral theory has to be coherent, but need not be so structured as to consist exclusively of a small set of abstract principles from which all judgments about what is morally right can be derived or to provide a reduction of all moral values to a single supervalue or to a few supervalues.