This chapter develops and defends an expressivism-friendly theory of normative disagreement. It argues that existing expressivist treatments of normative disagreement are inadequate, and that disagreement should instead be understood in terms of ‘disagreement in prescription’. This account is shown to be superior to both Charles Stevenson's classical idea of ‘disagreement in attitude’ and Allan Gibbard's more recent idea of ‘disagreement in plan’.
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.