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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Whiting's defense of semantic obligations via the possibi... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

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

    Moral ResponsibilityPhilosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Semantic norms are constituted by communal practice, not individual speaker intention (Kripke's Wittgenstein, 'Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language').
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A speaker who misapplies 'plus' as 'quus' from desire diverges from communal use regardless of internal consistency with her own meaning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Criticism is therefore grounded in deviation from public semantic standards, not in contradiction of the speaker's private rule.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Whiting conflates acting in accordance with a meaning-rule with acting correctly by that rule's normative standard (cf. Boghossian's distinction in 'The Rule-Following Considerations').
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A speaker can systematically misapply a term from desire while still violating the correctness conditions constitutive of that term's semantic content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The availability of semantic criticism therefore does not require internal inconsistency but only divergence from the term's correctness conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The speaker acts as she does precisely because of what she means by the expression
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityPhilosophy of Language

    Related

    A speaker can systematically misapply a term from desire while still violating t...A speaker who misapplies 'plus' as 'quus' from desire diverges from communal use...Criticism is therefore grounded in deviation from public semantic standards, not...If the speaker acts in accordance with what she means, there is no semantic reas...
    +4 moreShow less
    Semantic norms are constituted by communal practice, not individual speaker inte...The availability of semantic criticism therefore does not require internal incon...The speaker acts as she does precisely because of what she means by the expressi...Whiting conflates acting in accordance with a meaning-rule with acting correctly...

    Similar

    The argument that meaning's normativity derives from the obligation to...79%The impression that there is a semantic obligation to speak the truth ...78%Russell's argument that 'the author of Waverley' lacks meaning is inva...78%Ironic utterances cannot be interpreted as meaning the opposite of wha...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    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)
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit