Abstract
Wide-scopers argue that the detachment of intuitively false ‘ought’ claims from hypothetical imperatives is blocked because ‘ought’ takes wide, as opposed to narrow, scope. I present two arguments against this view. The first questions the premise that natural language conditionals are true just in case the antecedent is false. The second shows that intuitively false ‘ought’s can still be detached even WITH wide-scope readings. This weakens the motivation for wide-scoping.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 251-255 |
| Number of pages | 5 |
| Journal | Grazer Philosophische Studien |
| Volume | 83 |
| Issue number | 13 |
| Publication status | Published - 2011 |