Explaining Disagreement: A Problem for (Some) Hybrid Expressivists.

Hybrid expressivists depart from pure expressivists by claiming that moral sentences express beliefs and desires. Daniel Boisvert and Michael Ridge, two prominent defenders of hybrid views, also depart from pure expressivists by claiming that moral sentences express general attitudes rather than an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Pacific Philosophical Quarterly Vol. 96; no. 1; pp. 39 - 53
Autor principal: Eriksson, John
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Wiley-Blackwell Mar2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
Descripción
Sumario:Hybrid expressivists depart from pure expressivists by claiming that moral sentences express beliefs and desires. Daniel Boisvert and Michael Ridge, two prominent defenders of hybrid views, also depart from pure expressivists by claiming that moral sentences express general attitudes rather than an attitude towards the subject of the sentence. This article argues that even if the shift to general attitudes helps solve some of the traditional problems associated with pure expressivism, a view like Ridge's, according to which the descriptive meaning is speaker relative, turns out to have problems explaining moral disagreement.