Conceptual Role Semantics and the Reference of Moral Concepts.

Abstract: This paper examines the prospects for a conceptual or functional role theory of moral concepts. It is argued that such an account is well‐placed to explain both the irreducibility and practicality of moral concepts. Several versions of conceptual role semantics for moral concepts are disti...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:European Journal of Philosophy Vol. 26; no. 1; pp. 95 - 122
Autor principal: Sinclair, Neil
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Wiley-Blackwell Mar2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=128376430&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 128376430
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        09668373
        7PU
      jtl: European Journal of Philosophy
      issn: 09668373
      maglogo: Y
    pubinfo:
      dt: Mar2018
      vid: 26
      iid: 1
      pid: 480
      pub: Wiley-Blackwell
    artinfo:
      ui:
        128376430
        10.1111/ejop.12191
      ppf: 95
      ppct: 27
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 232KB
      tig:
        atl: Conceptual Role Semantics and the Reference of Moral Concepts.
      aug:
        au: Sinclair, Neil
        affil: University of Nottingham, UK
      su:
        Moral agent (Philosophy)
        Semantics
        Philosophical analysis
        Irreducibility (Philosophy)
        Cognitive psychology
      sug:
        subj:
          Moral agent (Philosophy)
          Semantics
          Philosophical analysis
          Irreducibility (Philosophy)
          Cognitive psychology
      ab: Abstract: This paper examines the prospects for a conceptual or functional role theory of moral concepts. It is argued that such an account is well‐placed to explain both the irreducibility and practicality of moral concepts. Several versions of conceptual role semantics for moral concepts are distinguished, depending on whether the concept‐constitutive conceptual roles are (i) wide or narrow (ii) normative or non‐normative and (iii) purely doxastic or conative. It is argued that the most plausible version of conceptual role semantics for moral concepts involves only ‘narrow’ conceptual roles, where these include connections to motivational, desire‐like, states. In the penultimate section it is argued, contrary to what Wedgwood, Enoch and others have claimed, that such an account of moral concepts cannot plausibly be combined with the claim that moral concepts refer to robust properties.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Copyright of European Journal of Philosophy is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
      item: European Journal of Philosophy
      holder: Wiley-Blackwell
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2018
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N