We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. By continuing to browse this repository, you give consent for essential cookies to be used. You can read more about our Privacy and Cookie Policy.

Durham Research Online
You are in:

On leaving room for doubt : using Frege-Geach to illuminate expressivism's problem with objectivity.

Faraci, David (2017) 'On leaving room for doubt : using Frege-Geach to illuminate expressivism's problem with objectivity.', in Oxford studies in metaethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 244-264.


In print, the central objection to expressivism has been the Frege–Geach problem. Yet most cognitivists seem to be motivated by “deeper” worries, ones they have spent comparatively little time pursuing in print. Part of the explanation for this mismatch between motivation and rhetoric is likely that those deeper worries are largely metaphysical. Since expressivism is not a metaphysical view, it can be hard to see how to mount a relevant attack. The strategy in this chapter is to introduce claims about thought and language, rather than metaphysics, that represent common intuitions about normative objectivity. It then argues that popular forms of expressivism cannot accommodate these claims if they are to solve the negation problem—an aspect of Frege–Geach. If successful, this shows that expressivism really does have a problem accommodating normative objectivity. But, significantly, it does so without requiring any assumptions about what expressivist metaphysics look like.

Item Type:Book chapter
Full text:(VoR) Version of Record
Download PDF
Full text:Publisher-imposed embargo
(AM) Accepted Manuscript
File format - PDF
Publisher Web site:
Publisher statement:Faraci, David (2017). On Leaving Room for Doubt: Using Frege-Geach to Illuminate Expressivism's Problem with Objectivity. In Oxford Studies in Metaethics. Edited by Russ Shafer-Landau, reproduced by permission of Oxford University Press
Date accepted:No date available
Date deposited:05 September 2018
Date of first online publication:06 July 2017
Date first made open access:06 July 2019

Save or Share this output

Look up in GoogleScholar