PY3102 Handout 7

---

Mark Johnston’s Dispositional Schema:

(DS): X is C iff Ss are disposed to produce X-directed response R in K.

C= a use of a concept, such as the concept of redness

S=subjects

K= the circumstances in which X-directed response R is relevant to X being C

We can express S’s being disposed to f in K by saying that S is such as to f in K. Two ways of understanding dispositions:

1. X is disposed to f in circumstances C iff (if C obtain, X will f) This may be expressed by the statement

2. X is disposed to f in circumstances C iff (if C obtain, there is a tendency for X to f)

It is better to read the dispositional theory involving dispositions as analysed in (1).

---

Applying the Schema to Value:  David Lewis’ Dispositional Theory of Value:

(DTV): X is valuable iff we would be disposed to value X under ideal circumstances.

Notes on this claim:

• This is meant as an analytic definition.  It tells us what we mean when we call something valuable.  However, the definition is not obvious.  Lewis claims that interesting philosophical definitions are seldom obviously analytic, but that this does not show that they aren’t analytic.  Lewis also claims that his definition is equivocally analytic.  The term “valuable” gets used in many ways, and Lewis’ definition only means to capture most of the significant uses of the term.  Everyday language is fuzzy.  If we want philosophical definitions, we will have to regiment everyday usage.
• Lewis notes that DTV is uninterestingly circular.  It is circular because forms of “value” occur on both left and right sides of the definition.  It is uninteresting because it does not tell us who “we” are, what it is for “us” to “value” anything, or which circumstances are “ideal.” How do we specify these:
• Valuing X is desiring to desire X
• Ideal circumstances are circumstances of fullest possible imaginative acquaintance.
• The reference of ‘we’ is left open.  It depends on whether there is anything everyone would be disposed to desire to desire. Lewis thinks that leaving this open is a virtue of his account.  It lets the truth of relativism depend on contingent, empirical facts about us.  What would we value if we had the fullest acquaintance possible with something?

(DTV Full Version): X is valuable iff we would be disposed to desire to desire X under circumstances of fullest possible imaginative acquaintance with X.

• Which is the direction of explanation here?  The right side is primary, and explains the truth of the left side.
• Keep in mind that the DTV is an internalist theory- There is a necessary connection between judgements about value and our motivations.

---

Moral Constructivism: The view that facts about what we ought to do depend on the conclusions about what we ought to do that would be reached via a procedure of construction that takes us from collective agreement/endorsement to these conclusions.