On Searle’s Derivation and Its Relation to Constitutive Rules: A Social Scientist’s Perspective
Capitolo
Data di Pubblicazione:
2021
Citazione:
On Searle’s Derivation and Its Relation to Constitutive Rules: A Social Scientist’s Perspective / E. Fittipaldi - In: Revisiting Searle on Deriving “Ought” from “Is” / [a cura di] P. Di Lucia, E. Fittipaldi. - [s.l] : Palgrave MacMillan, 2021. - ISBN 9783030541156. - pp. 272-324 [10.1007/978-3-030-54116-3_15]
Abstract:
The author first distinguishes between evaluative and normative (or ought-)statements. While—not without some qualifications—evaluative statements can be logically derived from is-statements containing evaluative predicates, “parallel” ought-from-is derivations (OFIDs) raise problems. To address these problems, the author distinguishes between OFIDs involving (α) terms like “slave” or “chess rook” and “OFIDs” involving (β) terms like “promise” or “derive.” α-terms serve to express or describe normative emotions, attitudes, and/or hypostatizations; β-terms serve to create them (in a socio-psychological sense). While with α-terms OFIDs are possible, β-terms can be used only to make socio-psychological hypotheses. Next, the author shows that Searle’s counts-as formula selects phenomena unrelated to Searle’s examples of constitutive rules. Finally, the author shows that—pace Searle—language alone does not make OFIDs possible.
Tipologia IRIS:
03 - Contributo in volume
Keywords:
Searle’s ought-from-is derivation; Evaluative vs. normative statements; Terms expressing or describing normative attitudes and/or hypostatizations vs. terms creating normative attitudes and/or hypostatizations; Counts-as formula; Constitutive rules Language and ought-from-is derivations
Elenco autori:
E. Fittipaldi
Link alla scheda completa:
Titolo del libro:
Revisiting Searle on Deriving “Ought” from “Is”