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
    Without a principled criterion distinguishing semantic 'o... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The inference from 'ought'-statements to meaning statements is questionable

    Without a principled criterion distinguishing semantic 'oughts' from practical or social ones, inferring meaning from 'ought'-statements commits a category error.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Semantic meaning concerns what words refer to; practical oughts concern how agents should act. These address fundamentally different domains.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Conflating domains leads to absurdity: inferring 'red means stop' from 'you ought to stop at red lights' confuses linguistic with behavioral norms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without explicit criteria distinguishing these oughts, we cannot justify why any particular social norm determines what a term semantically means.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Meaning is constitutively social: what speakers ought to do with words partly determines their semantic content. The distinction collapses on examination.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Many legitimate semantic inferences use normative premises: 'words ought to be used consistently' grounds inferences about what speakers mean.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim assumes but never establishes that no principled criterion exists. Linguistic conventions plausibly provide exactly such criteria.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    Conflating domains leads to absurdity: inferring 'red means stop' from 'you ough...Many legitimate semantic inferences use normative premises: 'words ought to be u...Meaning is constitutively social: what speakers ought to do with words partly de...Semantic meaning concerns what words refer to; practical oughts concern how agen...
    +3 moreShow less
    The claim assumes but never establishes that no principled criterion exists. Lin...The inference from 'ought'-statements to meaning statements is questionableWithout explicit criteria distinguishing these oughts, we cannot justify why any...

    Details

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