Abstract
Since it was presented in 1963, Chisholm’s paradox has attracted constant attention in the deontic logic literature, but without the emergence of any definitive solution. We claim this is due to its having no single solution. The paradox actually presents many challenges to the formalization of deontic statements, including (1) context sensitivity of unconditional oughts, (2) formalizing conditional oughts, and (3) distinguishing generic from nongeneric oughts. Using the practical interpretation of ‘ought’ as a guideline, we propose a linguistically motivated logical solution to each of these problems, and explain the relation of the solution to the problem of contrary-to-duty obligations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Chisholm, R.M.: Contrary-to-duty imperatives and deontic logic. Analysis 24, 33–36 (1963)
Benthem, J., Grossi, D., Liu, F.: Priority structures in deontic logic. Theoria 80 (2013)
Cantwell, J.: Changing the modal context. Theoria 74, 331–351 (2008)
Mott, P.L.: On Chisholm’s paradox. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2, 197–211 (1973)
Sellars, W.: Reflections on contrary-to-duty imperatives. Noûs 1, 303–344 (1967)
Kratzer, A.: The notional category of modality. In: Eikmeyer, H.J., Rieser, H. (eds.) Words, Worlds and Contexts, pp. 38–74. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin (1981)
Lewis, D.K.: Counterfactuals. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1973)
Lewis, D.K.: Counterfactuals and comparative possibility. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2, 418–446 (1973)
Kolodny, N., MacFarlane, J.: Ifs and oughts. The Journal of Philosophy 107, 115–143 (2010)
Stalnaker, R.C.: Indicative conditionals. Philosophia 5, 269–286 (1975)
Portner, P.: Modality. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009)
Kratzer, A.: Modals and Conditionals. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2012)
Jones, A.J., Carmo, J.: Deontic logic and contrary-to-duties. In: Gabbay, D.M., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn., vol. VIII, pp. 265–344. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Amsterdam (2002)
Thomason, R.H.: The semantics of conditional modality (2012), http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~rthomaso/documents/modal-logic/lkminf.pdf
Carlson, G.N., Pelletier, F.J. (eds.): The Generic Book. Chicago University Press, Chicago (1995)
Hacquard, V.: Aspects of Modality. Ph.d. dissertation, Linguistics Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts (2006)
Lerner, A., Leslie, S.J.: Generics, generalism, and reflective equilibrium: Implications for moral theorizing from the study of language. In: Hawthorne, J., Turner, J. (eds.) Philosophical Perspectives 27: Philosophy of Language, pp. 366–403. Wiley Periodicals, Malden (2013)
Castañeda, H.N.: Paradoxes of moral reparation: Deontic foci versus circumstances. Philosophical Studies 57, 1–21 (1989)
Lewis, D.K.: Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 339–359 (1979)
Stalnaker, R.C.: Assertion. In: Cole, P. (ed.) Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics. Academic Press, New York (1981)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Saint Croix, C., Thomason, R.H. (2014). Chisholm’s Paradox and Conditional Oughts. In: Cariani, F., Grossi, D., Meheus, J., Parent, X. (eds) Deontic Logic and Normative Systems. DEON 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 8554. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08615-6_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08615-6_15
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-08614-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-08615-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)