In Defense of Imperative Inference

Abstract. “Surrender; therefore, surrender or fight ” is apparently an argument corresponding to an inference from an imperative to an imperative. Several philosophers, however (Williams 1963; Wedeking 1970; Harrison 1991; Hansen 2008), have denied that imperative inferences exist, arguing that (1) no such inferences occur in everyday life, (2) imperatives cannot be premises or conclusions of inferences because it makes no sense to say, for example, “since surrender ” or “it follows that surrender or fight”, and (3) distinct imperatives have conflicting permissive presuppositions (“surrender or fight ” permits you to fight without surrendering, but “surrender ” does not), so issuing distinct imperatives amounts to changing one’s mind and thus cannot be construed as making an inference. In response I argue inter alia that, on a reasonable understanding of ‘inference’, some everyday-life inferences do have imperatives as premises and conclusions, and that issuing imperatives with conflicting permissive presuppositions does not amount to changing one’s mind. 1. Introduction: Imperativ

Clause-Type, Force, and Normative Judgment in the Semantics of Imperatives

I argue that imperatives express contents that are both cognitively and semantically related to, but nevertheless distinct from, modal propositions. Imperatives, on this analysis, semantically encode features of planning that are modally specified. Uttering an imperative amounts to tokening this feature in discourse, and thereby proffering it for adoption by the audience. This analysis deals smoothly with the problems afflicting Portner's Dynamic Pragmatic account and Kaufmann's Modal account. It also suggests an appealing reorientation of clause-type theorizing, in which the cognitive act of updating on a typed sentence plays a central role in theorizing about both its semantics and role in discourse

Imperative Bilateralism

This paper provides a proof-theoretic account of imperative logical consequence by generalising Greg Restall’s multiple conclusion bilateralism for declarative logic. According to imperative bilateralism, a sequent Γ ⊢ Δ is valid iff jointly commanding all the imperatives Φ ∈ Γ and prohibiting all the imperatives Ψ ∈ Δ clashes. This account has three main virtues: (1) it provides a proof-theoretic account of imperatives; (2) it does not rely on the controversial notion of imperative inference; and (3) it is neutral regarding cognitivism about imperatives

Imperatives, norms and truth

Antes de emprender el análisis lógico de las normas jurídicas constitucionales, o de las normas en general, es preciso intentar resolver una cuestión previa que afecta a la posibilidad de existencia de una lógica de las normas: el dilema de Jørgensen. Nuestra propuesta de solución de este dilema es la siguiente: las normas son expresiones performativas. Al mismo tiempo, las expresiones performativas son enunciados que tienen valor de verdad. Además, las normas jurídicas son enunciados del tipo “A dice p”, lo que explica que puedan existir normas verdaderas y, al mismo tiempo, contradictorias entre síBefore embarking on the logical analysis of constitutional legal norms or norms in general, it is necessary to try to resolve a previous question that affects the possibility of the existence of a logic of norms: the Jørgensen’s dilemma. Our proposed solution to this dilemma is as follows: norms are performative utterances. At the same time, performative utterances are statements that have truth value. In addition, the legal norms are statements of type “A says p”, which explains that there may be true norms and, at the same time, contradictory to each other

Imperative Inference and Practical Rationality

Some arguments include imperative clauses. For example: ‘Buy me a drink; you can’t buy me that drink unless you go to the bar; so, go to the bar!’ How should we build a logic that predicts which of these arguments are good? Because imperatives aren’t truth apt and so don’t stand in relations of truth preservation, this technical question gives rise to a foundational one: What would be the subject matter of this logic? I argue that declaratives are used to produce beliefs, imperatives are used to produce intentions, and beliefs and intentions are subject to rational requirements. An argument will strike us as valid when anyone whose mental state satisfies the premises is rationally required to satisfy the conclusion. For example, the above argument reflects the principle that it is irrational not to intend what one takes to be the necessary means to one’s intended ends. I argue that all intuitively good patterns of imperative inference can be explained using off-the-shelf formulations of our rational requirements. I then develop a formal-semantic theory embodying this view that predicts a range of data, including free-choice effects and Ross’s paradox. The resulting theory shows one way that our aspirations to rational agency can be discerned in the patterns of our speech, and is a case study in how the philosophy of language and the philosophy of action can be mutually illuminating