On Three Dogmas of Normativity

Journal of Applied Philosophy 40 (2):205-210 (2023)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Ruth Chang argues against three dogmas of normativity. Her argument, as least about the first two, is defensible, but defensible on a naturalistic account of normativity that she may not find congenial.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,593

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Four Paradoxes of Self-Reference: The Being of the Universal.Gregory S. Moss - 2014 - Journal of Speculative Philosophy 28 (2):169-189.
Quine's ‘Two Dogmas of Empiricism’: or The Power of Bad Logic.Geoffrey Hunter - 1995 - Philosophical Investigations 18 (4):305-328.
Two dogmas of analytic historiography.Michael Beaney - 2020 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 28 (3):594-614.
How Norms in Technology Ought to Be Interpreted.Krist Vaesen - 2006 - Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology 10 (1):95-108.
Three Dogmas of Response-Dependence.Mark Lebar - 2005 - Philosophical Studies 123 (3):175-211.
Are Quine's Two Dogmas Still Dogmas?A. Kanthamani - 1994 - Indian Philosophical Quarterly 21 (3):195.
Two dogmas of liberalism.Glen Newey - 2010 - European Journal of Political Theory 9 (4):449-465.
Hypothetical and Categorical Epistemic Normativity.Chase B. Wrenn - 2004 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 42 (2):273-290.

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-10-20

Downloads
53 (#268,373)

6 months
4 (#319,344)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Philip Pettit
Australian National University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references