Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 167, Issue 2, pp 361–373 | Cite as

Relative correctness

  • Teresa Marques
Article

Abstract

John MacFarlane defends a radical form of truth relativism that makes the truth of assertions relative not only to contexts of utterance but also to contexts of assessment, or perspectives. Making sense of assessment-sensitive truth is a matter of making sense of the normative commitments undertaken by speakers in using assessment sensitive sentences. This paper argues against the possibility of making sense of such a practice. Evans raised a challenge to the coherence of relative truth. A modification of the challenge can be given against MacFarlane’s revised views on assertion. The main objection to the relativist is that rational and earnest speakers are not bound by assessment-relative standards of correctness.

Keywords

Relativism Assertion Commitments Correctness conditions John MacFarlane Gareth Evans 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Manuel García-Carpintero, Sven Rosenkranz, Pedro Santos and Dan Zeman for helpful discussion and feedback on previous versions of this material. Thanks also to an anonymous referee for this journal for very helpful comments and suggestions. The research for this paper was supported by projects Contextualism, Relativism and Practical Conflicts and Disagreement, EuroUnders/0001/2010 (part of the collaborative research project Communication in Contex: of the ESF EUROCORES EuroUnderstanding programme) and Online Companion to Problems of Analytic Philosophy, PTDC/FIL-FIL/121209/2010 (both funded by FCT); The Nature of Assertion: Consequences for Relativism and Fictionalism Code: FFI2010-16049, and PERSPPhilosophy of Perspectival Thouths and Facts, Code: CSD2009-00056 (Spain), and by the AGAUR of the Generalitat de Catalunya (2009SGR-1077).

References

  1. Egan, A. (2007). Epistemic modals, relativism and assertion. Philosophical Studies, 133(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Egan, A. (2010). Disputing about taste. In T. Warfield & R. Feldman (Eds.), Disagreement (pp. 247–286). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Evans, G. (1985). Does tense logic rest on a mistake? In A. Philips (Ed.), Collected papers (pp. 341–363). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  4. Francén, R. (2010). No deep disagreement for new relativists. Philosophical Studies, 151, 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. García-Carpintero, M. (2008). Relativism, vagueness and what is said. In M. García-Carpintero & M. Kölbel (Eds.), Relative truth (pp. 129–154). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. García-Carpintero, M. (2012). Relativism, the open future, and propositional truth. In F. Correia & A. Iacona (eds.), Around the tree - Semantical and Metaphyshical Issues Concerning Branching and the Open Future. Synthese Lybrary 361. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  7. Kölbel, M. (2004). Indexical relativism versus genuine relativism. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 12(3), 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lasersohn, P. (2005). Context dependence, disagreement and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28(06), 643–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. MacFarlane, J. (2003). Future contingents and relative truth. Philosophical Quarterly, 53(212), 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. MacFarlane, J. (2005). Making sense of relative truth. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 105(3), 321–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. MacFarlane, J. (2007). Relativism and disagreement. Philosophical Studies, 132(1), 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. MacFarlane, J. (2008). Truth in the garden of forking paths. In M. García-Carpintero & M. Kölbel (Eds.), Relative truth (pp. 81–102). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. MacFarlane, J. (2012). Assessment sensitivity: Relative truth or its applications (manuscript accessed on-line April 2012).Google Scholar
  14. Marques, T. (forthcoming) Doxastic disagreement. Erkenntnis.Google Scholar
  15. Ross, J., & Schroeder, M. (forthcoming) Reversibility or disagreement. Mind.Google Scholar
  16. Sundell, T. (2011). Disagreements about taste. Philosophical Studies, 155(2), 267–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tweedale, M. M. (2004). Future contingents and deflated truth-value gaps. Noûs, Xxxviii(2), 233–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LisbonLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations