Advertisement

A solution to the many attitudes problem

  • Bob BeddorEmail author
Article

Abstract

According to noncognitivism, normative beliefs are just desire-like attitudes. While noncognitivists have devoted great effort to explaining the nature of normative belief, they have said little about all of the other attitudes we take towards normative matters. Many of us desire to do the right thing. We sometimes wonder whether our conduct is morally permissible; we hope that it is, and occasionally fear that it is not. This gives rise to what Schroeder calls the ‘Many Attitudes Problem’: the problem of developing a plausible noncognitivist account of the full range of attitudes that we take towards normative matters. This paper explores the problem and proposes a solution.

Keywords

Expressivism Moral belief Desire Functional role psychology Noncognitivism 

Notes

References

  1. Anand, P., & Hacquard, V. (2013). Epistemics and attitudes. Semantics and Pragmatics, 6, 1–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anscombe, G. E. M. (1957). Intention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Audi, R. (1973). Intending. Journal of Philosophy, 70(13), 387–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayer, A. J. (1936). Language, truth, and logic. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  5. Beddor, B. (2019). Noncognitivism and epistemic evaluations. Philosophers’ Imprint, 19(10), 1–27.Google Scholar
  6. Beddor, B. (2019). Fallibility for expressivists. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  7. Beddor, B., & Pavese, C. (2018) Modal virtue epistemology. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.  https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12562 Google Scholar
  8. Björnsson, G., & McPherson, T. (2014). Moral attitudes for non-cognitivists: Solving the specification problem. Mind, 123(489), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blackburn, S. (1993). Essays in quasi-realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Blackburn, S. (1996). Securing the nots: Moral epistemology for the quasi-realist. In M. Timmons (Ed.), Moral knowledge? New readings in moral epistemology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Blackburn, S. (1998). Ruling passions. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  12. Boisvert, D. (2008). Expressive-assertivism. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 89, 169–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bratman, M. (1987). Intention, plans, and practical reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Bykvist, K., & Olson, J. (2009). Expressivism and moral certitude. Philosophical Quarterly, 59, 202–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bykvist, K., & Olson, J. (2012). Against the being for account of normative certitude. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 6(2), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davidson, D. (1963). Actions, reasons, and causes. Journal of Philosophy, 60(23), 685–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davis, W. (1984). A causal theory of intending. American Philosophical Quarterly, 21(1), 43–54.Google Scholar
  18. Day, J. P. (1970). The anatomy of fear and hope. Mind, 79(315), 369–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dietz, C. (2018). Reasons and factive emotions. Philosophical Studies, 175, 1681–1691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eriksson, J., & Francén Olinder, R. (2016). Non-cognitivism and the classification account of moral uncertainty. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 94(4), 719–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fletcher, G., & Ridge, M. (2014). Having it both ways: Hybrid theories and modern metaethics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Friedman, J. (2013). Question-directed attitudes. Philosophical Perspectives, 27(1), 145–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gibbard, A. (1990). Wise choices, apt feelings. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gibbard, A. (2003). Thinking how to live. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Gibbard, A. (2013). Meaning and normativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Goldman, A. (2006). Simulating minds: The philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience of mindreading. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gordon, R. M. (1987). The structure of emotion: Investigations in cognitive philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Grice, P. (1971). Intentions and uncertainty. Proceedings of the British Academy, 57, 263–279.Google Scholar
  29. Harman, G. (1976). Practical reasoning. Review of Metaphysics, 29(3), 431–463.Google Scholar
  30. Hay, R. (2013). Hybrid expressivism and the analogy between pejoratives and moral language. European Journal of Philosophy, 21(3), 450–474.Google Scholar
  31. Horgan, T., & Timmons, M. (2006). Cognitivist expressivism. In T. Horgan & M. Timmons (Eds.), Metaethics after Moore. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Johnston, M. (1992). How to speak of the colors. Philosophical Studies, 68, 221–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Köhler, S. (2013). Do expressivists have an attitude problem? Ethics, 123(3), 479–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kohler, S. (2017). Belief, expressivism, and all that. Journal ofPhilosophy, 114(4), 189–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Laskowski, N. (2019). The sense of incredibility in ethics. Philosophical Studies, 176(1), 93–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lewis, D. (1974). Radical interpretation. Synthese, 23, 331–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Manley, D., & Wasserman, R. (2008). On linking dispositions and conditionals. Mind, 117(465), 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marušić, B., & Schwenkler, J. (2018). Intending is believing: A defense of strong cognitivism. Analytic Philosophy, 59(3), 309–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Meirav, A. (2009). The nature of hope. Ratio, 22(2), 216–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Milona, M. (2019). Finding hope. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 49, 710–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Morillo, C. (1990). The reward event and motivation. Journal of Philosophy, 87, 169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moss, S. (2013). Epistemology formalized. Philosophical Review, 122(1), 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Perl, C. (2018). A user’s guide to hybrid tools. Mind.  https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzy063.Google Scholar
  44. Ridge, M. (1998). Humean intentions. American Philosophical Quarterly, 35, 157–178.Google Scholar
  45. Ridge, M. (2006a). Saving the ethical appearances. Mind, 115(459), 633–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ridge, M. (2006b). Ecumenical expressivism: Finessing frege. Ethics, 116, 302–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ridge, M. (2007). Ecumenical expressivism: The best of both worlds? In R. Shafer-Landau (Ed.), Oxford studies in metaethics (Vol. 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Ridge, M. (2014). Impassioned belief. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ridge, M. (2018) Normative certitude for expressivists. Synthese.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-1884-7.Google Scholar
  50. Schroeder, M. (2008a). Being for: Evaluating the semantic program of expressivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schroeder, M. (2008b). What is the Frege–Geach problem? Philosophy Compass, 3(4), 703–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schroeder, M. (2009). Hybrid expressivism: Virtues and vices. Ethics, 119, 257–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schroeder, M. (2010). Noncognitivism in ethics. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schroeder, M. (2013a). Tempered expressivism. In R. Shafer-Landau (Ed.), Oxford studies in metaethics (Vol. 8). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Schroeder, M. (2013b). Two roles for propositions. Noûs, 47(3), 409–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schueler, G. F. (1995). Desire: Its role in practical reason and the explanation of action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  57. Searle, J. (1983). Intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sepielli, A. (2012). Normative uncertainty for non-cognitivists. Philosophical Studies, 160, 191–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Shiller, D. (2017). The problem of other attitudes. American Philosophical Quarterly, 54(2), 141–152.Google Scholar
  60. Sinhababu, N. (2013). The desire-belief account of intention explains everything. Noûs, 47(4), 680–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sinhababu, N. (2017). Humean nature. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Smith, M. (1987). The humean theory of motivation. Mind, 96, 36–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Smith, M. (2002). Evaluation, uncertainty, and motivation. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 5(3), 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stalnaker, R. (1984). Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  65. Stevenson, C. L. (1937). The emotive meaning of ethical terms. Mind, 46, 14–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Strawson, G. (1994). Mental reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  67. Svavarsdóttir, S. (1999). Moral cognitivism and motivation. The Philosophical Review, 108, 161–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Toppinen, T. (2013). Believing in expressivism. In R. Shafer-Landau (Ed.), Oxford studies in metaethics (Vol. 8). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Toppinen, T. (2017). Hybrid accounts of ethical thought and talk. In T. McPherson & D. Plunkett (Eds.), Routledge handbook of metaethics (pp. 243–259). Abington: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Unger, P. (1975). Ignorance. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  71. Vetter, B. (2014). Dispositions without conditionals. Mind, 123(489), 129–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wallace, J. (2001). Normativity, commitment, and instrumental reason. Philosophers’ Imprint, 1(3), 1–26.Google Scholar
  73. Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Yalcin, S. (2012). Bayesian expressivism. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 112(2), 123–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations