Metanormative theory and the meaning of deontic modals
M. Chrisman
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780198717928.003.0014
2016-06-23
Abstract:Metanormative theory is, in part, about the meaning of sentences such as “One ought always act for reasons for which one could consistently allow everyone else to act as well,” and “One should proportion degree of belief solely in accordance with evidence.” There are other normative terms, of course, but ‘ought’ (≈ ‘should’), is clearly one of the handful of core normative terms, and I will focus on it here.1 Given this focus, here is a way to put an idea that I think many philosophers find attractive: ought-claims prescribe possible action, thought, and feeling, rather than describing how things actually stand in reality. Arguably, this idea underwrites the popularity of the is/ought divide, explains some of the attraction in Moore’s Open Question Argument, and motivates some of the interest philosophers have had in noncognitivist, emotivist, prescriptivist, projectivist, and expressivist accounts of normative thought and discourse. Here is another popular line of thought that has sometimes seemed to be in tension with that initial idea: A central part of the best overall account of the meaning of declarative sentences will explain how their truth conditions can be derived from the semantic values of their basic components and their logical form. The word ‘ought’ can, of course, figure in nondeclarative sentences, but the ought-sentences primarily at issue in metanormative theory are grammatically declarative. This implies that our overall theory of meaning should provide a compositional assignment of truth conditions to ought-sentences as a part of its treatment of declarative sentences more generally. This seems necessary for accounting for the fact that it is obviously meaningful to embed ought-sentences in propositional contexts, such as under the truth
Philosophy