Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorBall, Derek
dc.date.accessioned2022-02-04T00:42:01Z
dc.date.available2022-02-04T00:42:01Z
dc.date.issued2020-02-04
dc.identifier264570895
dc.identifierc96b12c9-a0f7-4bfc-960d-40bd73618c71
dc.identifier85078916480
dc.identifier000510828900001
dc.identifier.citationBall , D 2020 , ' Metasemantic ethics ' , Ratio , vol. Early View . https://doi.org/10.1111/rati.12256en
dc.identifier.issn0034-0006
dc.identifier.otherORCID: /0000-0002-7229-3282/work/68647551
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10023/24806
dc.description.abstractThe idea that experts (especially scientific experts) play a privileged role in determining the meanings of our words and the contents of our concepts has become commonplace since the work of Hilary Putnam, Tyler Burge, and others in the 1970s. But if experts have the power to determine what our words mean, they can do so responsibly or irresponsibly, from good motivations or bad, justly or unjustly, with good or bad effects. This paper distinguishes three families of metasemantic views based on their attitudes towards bad behaviour by meaning‐fixing experts, and draws a series of distinctions relevant for the normative evaluation of meaning‐determining actions.
dc.format.extent387507
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofRatioen
dc.subjectAnti-individualismen
dc.subjectExpertsen
dc.subjectMetasemantic ethicsen
dc.subjectMetasemanticsen
dc.subjectSemantic externalismen
dc.subjectB Philosophy (General)en
dc.subjectT-NDASen
dc.subject.lccB1en
dc.titleMetasemantic ethicsen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Arché Philosophical Research Centre for Logic, Language, Metaphysics and Epistemologyen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Philosophyen
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/rati.12256
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden
dc.date.embargoedUntil2022-02-04


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record