Reply to Worsnip, Dowell, and Koehn

Analysis 80 (1):131-147 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper responds to comments on my 2014 book Confusion of Tongues by Alex Worsnip, Janice Dowell, and Glen Koehn. I first address Worsnip’s case for contextualism without relativism. Next I address Dowell’s and Worsnip’s scepticism about whether COT succeeds in providing an analytic reduction of the normative, and Dowell’s recommendation to pursue an alternative, synthetic method. I then consider Worsnip’s comments on COT’s implications for normative ethical theory, and end by responding to Koehn’s challenges to the details of my end-relational semantics and treatment of the notion of final value.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,590

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-02-04

Downloads
101 (#53,879)

6 months
31 (#500,116)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Stephen Finlay
Australian Catholic University

Citations of this work

Reasons for Belief in Context.Darren Bradley - forthcoming - Episteme:1-16.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Moral realism.Peter Railton - 1986 - Philosophical Review 95 (2):163-207.
On Bullshit.Harry G. Frankfurt - 1986 - Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Conceptual Ethics I.Alexis Burgess & David Plunkett - 2013 - Philosophy Compass 8 (12):1091-1101.
Tempered expressivism.Mark Schroeder - 2013 - Oxford Studies in Metaethics (1).

View all 17 references / Add more references