Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    If the speaker acts in accordance with what she means, th... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Whiting's defense of semantic obligations via the possibility of criticizing a speaker who misapplies an expression out of mere desire is not convincing

    If the speaker acts in accordance with what she means, there is no semantic reason to criticize her

    Philosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of Language

    Connections

    1 topic

    Moral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    The speaker acts as she does precisely because of what she means by the expressi...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Whiting's defense of semantic obligations via the possibility of criticizing a s...

    Similar

    The speaker acts as she does precisely because of what she means by th...79%A competent speaker can believe that X is the act that will produce th...77%Whiting's defense of semantic obligations via the possibility of criti...77%When the speaker is a brain-in-a-vat, the argument's conclusion (that ...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: meaning-normativity
    View source passageHide passage
    This appeal to prima facie obligations has been challenged. What is distinctive of a prima facie obligation, as opposed to a mere instrumental means-end imperative, is that it cannot be overridden by mere desires. However, it is argued, if \(S\) has no desire to speak the truth, then \(S\) has no obligation to apply “green” to green objects. For instance, if neither \(S\), nor her audience, care whether \(S\) tells the truth, then there is no obligation to apply “green” correctly. Hence, (CM)

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective