Conclusion

Abstract

Eklund’s Bad Guy raises questions that are related to the semantic stability of practical terms, but highlights some important consequences of stability that go beyond mere facts about disagreement. Bad Guy applies his normative ‘ought’ systematically to actions we would say are not obligatory. If Bad Guy should be interpreted as using his ‘ought’ to refer to obligation—the same property we refer to—then it follows that there is a measure of semantic stability for ‘ought.’ If not, then Bad Guy can say things like, “One ought not give money to the poor,” using an ‘ought’ with a normative role, and say something that is ...