{"title":"Overcoming von Wright's anxiety","authors":"Andrew Halpin","doi":"10.1111/theo.12519","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the anxiety expressed by von Wright over the status of the deontic permission, <jats:italic>P</jats:italic>, as an independent normative category, given the interdefinability between <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>O</jats:italic> at the foundation of deontic logic. Two concerns are noted: the reducibility of <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> to <jats:italic>O</jats:italic>, and the inadequacy of <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> to convey a full permission in a social setting. Drawing on resources from the Hohfeldian analytical framework, the relational and aggregate features of permission are explored, and an aggregate conception of permission, P, is recognized. With the assistance of insights from Demey and Smessaert on duals, Hansson on formalization, and Soames on interdefinability, it is concluded that the interdefinability thesis can be defended without threatening the independent status of <jats:italic>P</jats:italic>. Additional grounds for reaching this conclusion are provided from a detailed analysis of the relationship between <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> and P. Some implications of the more expansive notion of permission, P, are considered with regard to the resources of deontic logic and their application.","PeriodicalId":44638,"journal":{"name":"THEORIA","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"THEORIA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/theo.12519","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This article examines the anxiety expressed by von Wright over the status of the deontic permission, P, as an independent normative category, given the interdefinability between P and O at the foundation of deontic logic. Two concerns are noted: the reducibility of P to O, and the inadequacy of P to convey a full permission in a social setting. Drawing on resources from the Hohfeldian analytical framework, the relational and aggregate features of permission are explored, and an aggregate conception of permission, P, is recognized. With the assistance of insights from Demey and Smessaert on duals, Hansson on formalization, and Soames on interdefinability, it is concluded that the interdefinability thesis can be defended without threatening the independent status of P. Additional grounds for reaching this conclusion are provided from a detailed analysis of the relationship between P and P. Some implications of the more expansive notion of permission, P, are considered with regard to the resources of deontic logic and their application.
本文探讨了冯-赖特对作为一个独立规范范畴的 "允准"(P)的地位所表达的焦虑,因为 "允准"(P)与 "允准"(O)之间的互定性是 "允准 "逻辑的基础。冯-赖特指出了两个值得关注的问题:P 与 O 之间的可还原性,以及 P 不足以在社会环境中传达完整的许可。借助霍菲尔德分析框架的资源,我们探讨了许可的关系特征和集合特征,并确认了许可的集合概念 P。在德米和斯梅萨特关于二元性、汉森关于形式化以及索姆斯关于可定义性的见解的帮助下,我们得出结论,可定义性论题可以在不威胁 P 的独立地位的情况下得到辩护。
期刊介绍:
Since its foundation in 1935, Theoria publishes research in all areas of philosophy. Theoria is committed to precision and clarity in philosophical discussions, and encourages cooperation between philosophy and other disciplines. The journal is not affiliated with any particular school or faction. Instead, it promotes dialogues between different philosophical viewpoints. Theoria is peer-reviewed. It publishes articles, reviews, and shorter notes and discussions. Short discussion notes on recent articles in Theoria are welcome.