Absolutism About Taste and Faultless Disagreement

  • Marián ZouharEmail author


It is usually claimed that taste utterances have judge-dependent semantic content. Jeremy Wyatt recently proposed a semantic theory that rejects this claim. According to him, the semantic content of taste sentences is judge-independent, but the content of our assertions made by uttering taste sentences is judge-dependent. He showed that this account explains faultless disagreements about tastes. My paper aims to raise some challenges to his proposal. First, a judge-independent taste proposition semantically expressed by a taste sentence seems unrelated to a judge-dependent taste proposition asserted by the speaker. It means that the latter proposition is not systematically obtained from the former. Second, the theory assumes that there are judge-independent taste properties (like being tasty, full stop). The existence of such properties can be questioned because it is problematic to state instantiation conditions for them. The paper ends with a sketch of an alternative explanation; it shares Wyatt’s account of faultless disagreements but does not suffer from its drawbacks.


Absolutism Contextualism Faultless disagreement Judge-dependent taste proposition Judge-independent taste proposition 



I am indebted to an anonymous reviewer for Acta Analytica for her or his criticisms and useful suggestions.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.


  1. Anthony, A. (2016). Experience, evaluation and faultless disagreement. Inquiry, 59(6), 686–722. Scholar
  2. Baker, C., & Robson, J. (2017). An absolutist theory of faultless disagreement in aesthetics. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 98(3), 429–448. Scholar
  3. Barker, C. (2013). Negotiating taste. Inquiry, 56(2-3), 240–257. Scholar
  4. Borg, E. (2004). Minimal semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scholar
  5. Buekens, F. (2011). Faultless disagreement, assertions and the affective-expressive dimension of judgments of taste. Philosophia, 39(4), 637–655. Scholar
  6. Cappelen, H., & Hawthorne, J. (2009). Relativism and monadic truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scholar
  7. Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2005). Insensitive semantics: a defense of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell. Scholar
  8. Clapp, L. (2015). A non-alethic approach to faultless disagreement. Dialectica, 69(4), 517–550. Scholar
  9. Duží, M., Jespersen, B., & Materna, P. (2010). Procedural semantics for hyperintensional logic: foundations and applications of transparent intensional logic. Dordrecht: Springer. Scholar
  10. Egan, A. (2010). Disputing about taste. In R. Feldman & T. A. Warfield (Eds.), Disagreement (pp. 247–286). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scholar
  11. Egan, A. (2014). There’s something funny about comedy: a case study in faultless disagreement. Erkenntnis, 79(Supplement 1), 73–100. Scholar
  12. Eriksson, J., & Tiozzo, M. (2016). Matters of ambiguity: faultless disagreement, relativism, and realism. Philosophical Studies, 173(6), 1517–1536. Scholar
  13. Glanzberg, M. (2007). Context, content, and relativism. Philosophical Studies, 136(1), 1–29. Scholar
  14. Grice, P. (1989). Logic and conversation. In Studies in the way of words (pp. 22–40). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gutzmann, D. (2016). In C. Meier & J. van Wijnberger-Huitink (Eds.), If expressivism is fun, go for it In Subjective meaning: alternatives to relativism (pp. 21–46). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  16. Hills, A. (2013). Faultless moral disagreement. Ratio, 26(4), 410–427. Scholar
  17. Hirvonen, S. (2016). Doing without judge dependence. In C. Meier & J. van Wijnberger-Huitink (Eds.), Subjective meaning: alternatives to relativism (pp. 47–68). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  18. Huvenes, T. T. (2014). Disagreement without error. Erkenntnis, 79(Supplement 1), 143–154. Scholar
  19. Kölbel, M. (2002). Truth without objectivity. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Kölbel, M. (2004). Faultless disagreement. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 104, 53–73. Scholar
  21. Lasersohn, P. (2005). Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28(6), 643–686. Scholar
  22. Lewis, D. (1980). Index, context, and content. In S. Kanger & S. Öhman (Eds.), Philosophy and grammar (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam: D. Reidel Publishing Company. Scholar
  23. Lewis, D. (1989). Dispositional theories of value. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 63, 113–138. Scholar
  24. López de Sa, D. (2008). Presuppositions of commonality: an indexical relativist account of disagreement. In M. García-Carpintero & M. Kölbel (Eds.), Relative truth (pp. 297–310). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scholar
  25. López de Sa, D. (2015). Expressing disagreement: a presuppositional indexical contextualist relativist account. Erkenntnis, 80(Supplement 1), 153–165. Scholar
  26. López de Sa, D. (2017). Making beautiful truths. In J. O. Young (Ed.), Semantics of aesthetic judgements (pp. 38–60). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scholar
  27. MacFarlane, J. (2005). Making sense of relative truth. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 105, 321–339. Scholar
  28. MacFarlane, J. (2014). Assessment sensitivity: relative truth and its applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scholar
  29. Marques, T. (2016). Aesthetic predicates: a hybrid dispositional account. Inquiry, 59(6), 723–751. Scholar
  30. Marques, T., & García-Carpintero, M. (2014). Disagreement about taste: commonality presuppositions and coordination. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 92(4), 701–723. Scholar
  31. McIver Lopes, D. (2017). Disputing taste. In J. O. Young (Ed.), Semantics of aesthetic judgements (pp. 61–81). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scholar
  32. Moltmann, F. (2010). Relative truth and the first person. Philosophical Studies, 150(2), 187–220. Scholar
  33. Ninan, D. (2014). Taste predicates and the acquaintance inference. Proceedings of SALT, 24, 290–309. Scholar
  34. Plunkett, D., & Sundell, T. (2013). Disagreement and the semantics of normative and evaluative terms. Philosopher’s Imprint, 13(23)
  35. Raven, M. J. (2017). Against the semantic orientation towards aesthetic judgement. In J. O. Young (Ed.), Semantics of aesthetic judgements (pp. 160–184). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scholar
  36. Recanati, F. (2003). Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scholar
  37. Recanati, F. (2007). Perspectival thought: a plea for (moderate) relativism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scholar
  38. Richard, M. (2008). When truth gives out. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scholar
  39. Schafer, K. (2011). Faultless disagreement and aesthetic realism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 82(2), 265–286. Scholar
  40. Silk, A. (2016). Discourse contextualism: a framework for contextualist semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scholar
  41. Stephenson, T. (2007). Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(4), 487–525. Scholar
  42. Stojanovic, I. (2007). Talking about taste: disagreement, implicit arguments, and relative truth. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(6), 691–706. Scholar
  43. Sundell, T. (2011). Disagreements about taste. Philosophical Studies, 155(2), 267–288. Scholar
  44. Wright, C. (1992). Truth and objectivity. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Wright, C. (2008). Relativism about truth itself: haphazard thoughts about the very idea. In M. García-Carpintero & M. Kölbel (Eds.), Relative truth (pp. 157–185). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scholar
  46. Wyatt, J. (2018). Absolutely tasty: an examination of predicates of personal taste and faultless disagreement. Inquiry, 61(3), 252–280. Scholar
  47. Yalcin, S. (2014). Semantics and metasemantics in the context of generative grammar. In A. Burgess & B. Sherman (Eds.), Metasemantics: new essays on the foundations of meaning (pp. 17–54). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scholar
  48. Zeman, D. (2017). Contextualist answers to the challenge from disagreement. Phenomenology and Mind, 12, 62–73. Scholar
  49. Zouhar, M. (2018). Conversations about taste, contextualism, and non-doxastic attitudes. Philosophical Papers, 47(3), 429–460. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Logic and Methodology of Sciences, Faculty of ArtsComenius UniversityBratislavaSlovakia

Personalised recommendations