‘Must’, ‘Ought’ and the Structure of Standards
2014 (English)In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ISSN 0302-9743, E-ISSN 1611-3349, no 8554, 33-48 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
This paper concerns the semantic difference between strong and weak necessity modals. First we identify a number of explananda: their well-known intuitive difference in strength between ‘must’ and ‘ought’ as well as differences in connections to probabilistic considerations and acts of requir- ing and recommending. Here we argue that important extant analyses of the semantic differences, though tailored to account for some of these aspects, fail to account for all. We proceed to suggest that the difference between ’ought’ and ’must’ lies in how they relate to scalar and binary standards. Briefly put, must(φ) says that among the relevant alternatives, φ is selected by the relevant binary standard, whereas ought(φ) says that among the relevant alternatives, φ is selected by the relevant scale. Given independently plausible assumptions about how standards are provided by context, this explains the relevant differ- ences discussed.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer, 2014. no 8554, 33-48 p.
necessity modals, ought, must, Kratzer, von Fintel, Iatridou
Research subject Theoretical Philosophy; Practical Philosophy
IdentifiersURN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-95688DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-08615-6_4OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-95688DiVA: diva2:760436
Deontic Logic and Normative Systems, 12th International Conference, DEON 2014, Ghent, Belgium, July 12-15, 2014.
ProjectsOenighet, objektivitet och okänsliga bedömningar
FunderSwedish Research Council