Confusion of Tongues: A Theory of Normative Language

Confusion of Tongues: A Theory of Normative Language

4.11 - 1251 ratings - Source

Can normative words like good, ought, and reason be defined in entirely non-normative terms? Confusion of Tongues argues that they can, advancing a new End-Relational theory of the meaning of this language as providing the best explanation of the many different ways it is ordinarily used. Philosophers widely maintain that analyzing normative language as describing facts about relations cannot account for special features of particularly moral and deliberative uses of normative language, but Stephen Finlay argues that the End-Relational theory systematically explains these on the basis of a single fundamental principle of conversational pragmatics. These challenges comprise the central problems of metaethics, including the connection between normative judgment and motivation, the categorical character of morality, the nature of intrinsic value, and the possibility of normative disagreement. Finlays linguistic analysis has deep implications for the metaphysics, epistemology, and psychology of morality, as well as for the nature and possibility of normative ethical theory. Most significantly it supplies a nuanced answer to the ancient Euthyphro Question of whether we desire things because we judge them good, or vice versa. Normative speech and thought may ultimately be just a manifestation of our nature as intelligent animals motivated by contingent desires for various conflicting ends. harlem-rutgers.pdf, accessed September 1, 2006. von Fintel, Kai and iatridou, Sabine (2008). a€œHow to Say Ought in Foreign: The Composition of Weak Necessity modals.a€ in J. guAcron ... The Oxford English Grammar.

Title:Confusion of Tongues: A Theory of Normative Language
Author:Stephen Finlay
Publisher:Oxford University Press - 2014-04-08


You Must CONTINUE and create a free account to access unlimited downloads & streaming