Abstract
I generalise Kolodny and MacFarlane’s miners puzzle by showing epistemic analoguesof their case exist. After motivating various conservative approaches to the originalproblem, I show how they fail to solve the problem in its epistemic guise. I argue that a probabilisticapproach to information-sensitivity gives a general solution to the problem.Keywords: deontic modals, miners puzzle, epistemic ‘should’, probability.
Highlights
Kolodny and MacFarlane introduced the infamous miners problem to the literature on deontic modals
I show that this semantic puzzle runs deeper than previously thought: there are epistemic analogues of Kolodny and MacFarlane’s case and they have a variety of upshots for our understanding of the problem
Miners cases motivate not just a more expressive semantics and the use of orderings based on measure-theoretic notions like expected utility and probability in our semantics for ‘ought’ and ‘should’
Summary
Kolodny and MacFarlane introduced the infamous miners problem to the literature on deontic modals. I show that this semantic puzzle runs deeper than previously thought: there are epistemic analogues of Kolodny and MacFarlane’s case and they have a variety of upshots for our understanding of the problem. Miners cases motivate not just a more expressive semantics and the use of orderings based on measure-theoretic notions like expected utility and probability in our semantics for ‘ought’ and ‘should’. I show in section 3 that epistemic miners cases pose a major stumbling block for responses that try to avoid appealing either to informationsensitivity or measure-theoretic tools. I give an emendation of the classic semantics that can access probabilistic orderings and is sensitive to conditionalisation
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Similar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.