Morals, meaning and truth in Wittgenstein and Brandom

The aim of this paper is twofold. Firstly, it analyses the similarities that stem from Wittgenstein’s (Philosophical Investigations (1953)) and Brandom’s (Making it Explicit (1994)) commitment to pragmatics in the philosophy of language to account for moral utterances. That is, the study of the mea...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Jordi Fairhurst
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Disputatio Editions-IAR 2019-06-01
Series:Disputatio
Subjects:
Online Access:https://studiahumanitatis.eu/ojs/index.php/disputatio/article/view/115
id doaj-a222b4a9001344dcaa90d94f02218a35
record_format Article
spelling doaj-a222b4a9001344dcaa90d94f02218a352021-09-13T11:27:20ZengDisputatio Editions-IARDisputatio2254-06012019-06-018910.5281/zenodo.3376637Morals, meaning and truth in Wittgenstein and BrandomJordi Fairhurst0Universidad de las Islas Baleares, Spain The aim of this paper is twofold. Firstly, it analyses the similarities that stem from Wittgenstein’s (Philosophical Investigations (1953)) and Brandom’s (Making it Explicit (1994)) commitment to pragmatics in the philosophy of language to account for moral utterances. That is, the study of the meaning of moral utterances is carried out resorting to the study of the acts being performed in producing or exhibiting these utterances. Both authors offer, therefore, a pragmatic solution in order to account for the meaning of our moral vocabulary and discursive practices. Secondly, it argues that both approaches lead to differing understandings of the role of “truth” and “falsity” in moral discourse. On the one hand, Wittgenstein’s remarks on ethics demonstrate a dismissive attitude towards the notions of truth and falsity in moral discourse. On the other hand, Brandom seems to be committed to a weak version of moral cognitivism: he takes assertions (which express beliefs, i.e. doxastic commitments) as the fundamental linguistic activity in the game of giving and asking for reasons and provides an anaphoric theory of truth to account for “truth” and “falsity” in our discourse. Additionally, it analyses how these differences bear on the Frege–Geach problem. https://studiahumanitatis.eu/ojs/index.php/disputatio/article/view/115MoralsTruthMeaningPragmatics
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Jordi Fairhurst
spellingShingle Jordi Fairhurst
Morals, meaning and truth in Wittgenstein and Brandom
Disputatio
Morals
Truth
Meaning
Pragmatics
author_facet Jordi Fairhurst
author_sort Jordi Fairhurst
title Morals, meaning and truth in Wittgenstein and Brandom
title_short Morals, meaning and truth in Wittgenstein and Brandom
title_full Morals, meaning and truth in Wittgenstein and Brandom
title_fullStr Morals, meaning and truth in Wittgenstein and Brandom
title_full_unstemmed Morals, meaning and truth in Wittgenstein and Brandom
title_sort morals, meaning and truth in wittgenstein and brandom
publisher Disputatio Editions-IAR
series Disputatio
issn 2254-0601
publishDate 2019-06-01
description The aim of this paper is twofold. Firstly, it analyses the similarities that stem from Wittgenstein’s (Philosophical Investigations (1953)) and Brandom’s (Making it Explicit (1994)) commitment to pragmatics in the philosophy of language to account for moral utterances. That is, the study of the meaning of moral utterances is carried out resorting to the study of the acts being performed in producing or exhibiting these utterances. Both authors offer, therefore, a pragmatic solution in order to account for the meaning of our moral vocabulary and discursive practices. Secondly, it argues that both approaches lead to differing understandings of the role of “truth” and “falsity” in moral discourse. On the one hand, Wittgenstein’s remarks on ethics demonstrate a dismissive attitude towards the notions of truth and falsity in moral discourse. On the other hand, Brandom seems to be committed to a weak version of moral cognitivism: he takes assertions (which express beliefs, i.e. doxastic commitments) as the fundamental linguistic activity in the game of giving and asking for reasons and provides an anaphoric theory of truth to account for “truth” and “falsity” in our discourse. Additionally, it analyses how these differences bear on the Frege–Geach problem.
topic Morals
Truth
Meaning
Pragmatics
url https://studiahumanitatis.eu/ojs/index.php/disputatio/article/view/115
work_keys_str_mv AT jordifairhurst moralsmeaningandtruthinwittgensteinandbrandom
_version_ 1717381042303664128