Geach and Ascriptivism: Beside the Point
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15173/jhap.v4i6.2961Abstract
This paper discusses the first incarnation of what came to be known as the “Frege-Geach” point. The point was made by Peter Geach in his 1960 essay “Ascriptivism”, and developed in “Assertion”, a 1965 piece. Geach’s articles launch a wholesale attack on theories of non-descriptive performances advanced by “some Oxford philosophers” whom he accuses of ignoring “the distinction between calling a thing ‘P’ and predicating ‘P’ of a thing”. One view that Geach specifically targets is H. L. A. Hart’s claim (in the 1949 essay “The Ascription of Responsibility and Rights”) that sentences of the form “X φ-ed” are not primarily descriptive but ascriptive of responsibility for actions. Hart explicitly accepted Geach’s criticism, and disowned his essay. I argue that he was wrong to do so. Perhaps the essay was worth retracting, but not because of Geach’s objections. I begin by restating and refining Geach’s arguments, in order to bring out the flaw he claimed to have detected in the “pattern of philosophising” that he took Hart’s essay to exemplify. I go on to argue that Geach’s original point poses no obstacle either to non-descriptivism in general, or to Hart’s sui generis non-descriptivist claim in particular.
References
———, 1950. “Truth.” Reprinted in Austin (1979), pp. 117–33.
———, 1975. How to Do Things with Words, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———, 1979. Philosophical Papers, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baier, Kurt, 1951. “Decisions and Descriptions.” Mind 60: 181–204.
———, 1970. “Responsibility and Action.” In The Nature of Human Action, edited by M. Brand, pp. 100–120. Glenview: Scott, Foresman.
Bayles, Michael D., 1992. Hart’s Legal Philosophy: An Examination. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Baz, Avner, 2010. “Geach’s ‘Refutation’ of Austin Revisited.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 40: 41–62.
Blackburn, Simon, 1984. Spreading the Word: Groundings in the Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cherry, Christopher, 1974. “The Limits of Defeasibility.” Analysis 34: 101–107.
Chisholm, Roderick M., 1964. “The Descriptive Element in the Concept of Action.” The Journal of Philosophy 61: 613–25.
Coval, S. C. and Smith, Joseph C., 1986. Law and its Presuppositions: Actions, Agents, and Rules. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Denaro, Pietro, 2012. “Moral Harm and Moral Responsibility: A Defence of Ascriptivism.” Ratio Juris 25: 149–79.
Feinberg, Joel, 1965. “Action and Responsibility.” Reprinted in Doing and Deserving: Essays in the Theory of Responsibility, pp. 119–51. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970.
Finkelstein, Claire, 2005. “Responsibility for Unintended Consequences.” Ohio State Journal of Criminal Responsibility 2: 579–99.
Geach, P. T., 1958. “Imperative and Deontic Logic.” Reprinted in Geach (1972), pp. 270–77.
———, 1960. “Ascriptivism.” Reprinted in Geach (1972), pp. 250–53.
———, 1965. “Assertion.” Reprinted in Geach (1972), pp. 254–69.
———, 1972. Logic Matters. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gibbard, Allan, 1986. “An Expressivistic Theory of Normative Discourse.” Ethics 96: 472–85.
Hare, R. M., 1952. The Language of Morals. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
———, 1970. “Meaning and Speech Acts.” The Philosophical Review 79: 3–24.
Hart, H. L. A., 1949. “The Ascription of Responsibility and Rights.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 49: 171–94.
———, 1953. “Definition and Theory in Jurisprudence.” Reprinted in Hart (1983), pp. 21–48.
———, 1957. “Analytical Jurisprudence in Mid-Twentieth Century: A Reply to Professor Bodenheimer.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 105: 953–75.
———, 1983. Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
———, 2008/1968. Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———, 2012/1961. The Concept of Law, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Helm, Paul, 1971. “Professor Hart on Action and Property.” Mind 80: 427–31.
Holdcroft, David, 1969. “A Plea for Excuses?” Philosophy 44: 314–30.
Howarth, William, 1981. “The Feasibility of Defeasibility.” The Cambrian Law Review 12: 33–41.
Hurka, Thomas, 1982. “The Speech Act Fallacy Fallacy.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 12: 509–26.
Kölbel, Max, 1997. “Expressivism and the Syntactic Uniformity of Declarative Sentences.” Crítica: Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía 29: 3–51.
Ladd, John, 1965. “The Ethical Dimensions of the Concept of Action.” The Journal of Philosophy 62: 633–45.
Loui, Ronald P., 1995. “Hart’s Critics on Defeasible Concepts and Ascriptivism.” In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 21–30. New York: ACM Press.
Miller, Alexander, 2013. An Introduction to Contemporary Metaethics, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity.
Paprzycka, Katarzyna, 2014. “The Social Re-Construction of Agency.” In New Directions in the Philosophy of Science, edited by M. C. Galavotti, D. Dieks, W. J. Gonzalez, S. Hartmann, T. Uebel and M. Weber, pp. 323–38. Cham: Springer.
Pitcher, George, 1960. “Hart on Action and Responsibility.” The Philosophical Review 69: 226–35.
Rayfield, David, 1971. Action: An Analysis of the Concept. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Schroeder, Mark, 2008a. Being For: Evaluating the Semantic Program of Expressivism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
———, 2008b. “What is the Frege-Geach Problem?” Philosophy Compass 3: 703–20.
———, 2010. Noncognitivism in Ethics. London: Routledge.
Searle, J. R., 1962. “Meaning and Speech Acts.” The Philosophical Review 71: 423–32.
———, 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter, 2000. “Expressivism and Embedding.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61: 677–93.
Stoecker, Ralf, 2007. “Action and Responsibility: A Second Look at Ascriptivism.” In Intentionality, Deliberation, and Autonomy: The Action-Theoretical Basis of Practical Philosophy, edited by C. Lumer and S. Nannini, pp. 35–46. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Stoljar, Samuel, 1959. “Ascriptive and Prescriptive Responsibility.” Mind 68: 350–60.
Strawson, P. F., 1959. Individuals: An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics. London: Methuen.
Sugarman, David, 2005. “Hart Interviewed.” Journal of Law and Society 32: 267–93.
Urmson, J. O., 1968. The Emotive Theory of Ethics. London: Hutchinson.
van Roojen, Mark. 2013. “Frege-Geach Objection.” In The International Encyclopedia of Ethics, edited by H. LaFollette. London: Blackwell.
Warnock, G. J., 1971. “Hare on Meaning and Speech Acts.” The Philosophical Review 80: 80–84.
White, Alan R., 1985. Grounds of Liability: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Yolton, John W., 1957. “Ascriptions, Descriptions, and Action Sentences.” Ethics 67: 307–10.
Ziff, Paul, 1960. Semantic Analysis. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
The Public Knowledge Project recommends the use of the Creative Commons license. The Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy requires authors to agree to a Creative Commons Attribution /Non-commercial license. Authors who publish with the Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons BY-NC license.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.
