No. 55 (2018): Julio-diciembre
Articles

Definitional Disputes and Normative Language: How to Discuss About “Human Rights”

PDF (Español (España)) XML (Español (España))
  • Francisco García Gibson
Francisco García Gibson
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET). Universidad de Buenos Aires
Bio
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21555/top.v0i55.933

Published 2018-06-08

Keywords

How to Cite

García Gibson, F. (2018). Definitional Disputes and Normative Language: How to Discuss About “Human Rights”. Tópicos, Revista De Filosofía, (55), 11–30. https://doi.org/10.21555/top.v0i55.933
Copyright Notice

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Altmetrics

Citas

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

Definitional disputes about normative terms are common. Is it worth it to discuss about words? I argue that winning a definitional dispute can have important practical consequences. Imposing a particular definition on other speakers may cause certain desirable emotions in them, or it may influence their interpretation of legal and moral norms whose formulation in-cludes the disputed term. I then describe two rhetorical modes by which disputants can propose their preferred definition: one mode introduces the proposal as if it were a description of facts about the linguistic community, while the other mode introduc-es the proposal as a linguistic prescription. I show that in certain contexts the latter should be adopted, because (among other rea-sons) it is more transparent regarding the reasons why we argue about words. The article illustrates this point with the example of a definitional dispute about the expression “human rights”.

PDF (Español (España)) XML (Español (España))

References

  1. Ayer, Alfred Jules. 2014. Language, Truth and Logic. New York: Dover Publications.
  2. Beitz, Charles R. 2009. The Idea of Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  3. Burgess, Alexis, and David Plunkett. 2013. “Conceptual Ethics I.” Philosophy Compass 8 (12): 1091–1101.
  4. Gallie, W. B. 1955. “Essentially Contested Concepts.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56: 167–98.
  5. Griffin, James. 2008. On Human Rights. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
  6. Hare, Richard Mervyn. 1952. The Language of Morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  7. Meckled-Garcia, Saladin. 2008. “Moral Methodology and the Third Theory of Rights.” School of Public Policy Working Paper Series. Accesible en: ttps://www.ucl.ac.uk/spp/research/publications/downloads/spp-wp-28.pdf.
  8. Meckled-Garcia, Saladin. 2013. “Giving Up the Goods: Rethinking the Human Right to Subsistence, Institutional Justice, and Imperfect Duties.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 30 (1): 73–87.
  9. O’neill, Onora. 2000. Bounds of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Plunkett, David, and Timothy Sundell. 2013. “Disagreement and the Semantics of Normative and Evaluative Terms.” Philosophers’ Imprint 13 (23).
  11. Stevenson, Chares L. 1944. Ethics and Language. New York: Yale University Press.
  12. Tasioulas, John. 2007. “The Moral Reality of Human Rights.” En Freedom from Poverty as a Human Right: Who Owes What to the Very Poor, edited by Thomas Pogge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.