Kevin Toh
Biographic Data
| ID | 3873361 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Kevin Toh |
| GIVEN NAMES | Kevin |
| FAMILY NAME | Toh |
| SIGNATURE | TOH K |
| AFFILIATIONS | San Francisco State University |
| VERIFIED | No |
| TOTAL WORKS | 5 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 3 |
| AUTHOR COUNT | 4 |
| EDITOR COUNT | 1 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2010 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2022 |
| H-INDEX | 1 |
The Limits of Metalinguistic Negotiation: The Role of Shared Meanings in Normative Debate
According to philosophical orthodoxy, the parties to moral or legal disputes genuinely disagree only if their uses of key normative terms in the dispute express the same meaning. Recently, however, this orthodoxy has been challenged. According to an influential alternative view, genuine moral and legal disagreements should be understood as metalinguistic negotiations over which meaning a given term should have. In this paper, we argue that the sh…
A New Interpretivist Metasemantics for Fundamental Legal Disagreements
What does it take for lawyers and others to think or talk about the same legal topic—e.g., defamation, culpability? We argue that people are able to think or talk about the same topic not when they possess a matching substantive understanding of the topic, as traditional metasemantics says, but instead when their thoughts or utterances are related to each other in certain ways. And what determines the content of thoughts and utterances is what wo…
Dimensions of Normativity: New Essays on Metaethics and Jurisprudence
Jurisprudential Theories and First-Order Legal Judgments
The nature of the relation between jurisprudential theories and first-order legal judgments is a strangely uncontroversial matter in contemporary legal philosophy. There is one dominant conception of the relation according to which jurisprudential theories are second-order or meta-legal theories that specify the ultimate grounds of first-order legal judgments. According to this conception, difficult first-order legal disputes are to be resolved b…
The Predication Thesis and a New Problem about Persistent Fundamental Legal Controversies
According to a widely held view, people's commitments to laws are dependent on the existence in their community of a conventional practice of complying with certain fundamental laws. This conventionalism has significantly hampered our attempts to explain the normative practice of law. Ronald Dworkin has argued against conventionalism by bringing up the phenomenon of persistent fundamental legal controversies, but neither Dworkin nor his legal pos…
The Predication Thesis and a New Problem about Persistent Fundamental Legal Controversies
According to a widely held view, people's commitments to laws are dependent on the existence in their community of a conventional practice of complying with certain fundamental laws. This conventionalism has significantly hampered our attempts to explain the normative practice of law. Ronald Dworkin has argued against conventionalism by bringing up the phenomenon of persistent fundamental legal controversies, but neither Dworkin nor his legal pos…
Jurisprudential Theories and First-Order Legal Judgments
The nature of the relation between jurisprudential theories and first-order legal judgments is a strangely uncontroversial matter in contemporary legal philosophy. There is one dominant conception of the relation according to which jurisprudential theories are second-order or meta-legal theories that specify the ultimate grounds of first-order legal judgments. According to this conception, difficult first-order legal disputes are to be resolved b…
The Predication Thesis and a New Problem about Persistent Fundamental Legal Controversies
According to a widely held view, people's commitments to laws are dependent on the existence in their community of a conventional practice of complying with certain fundamental laws. This conventionalism has significantly hampered our attempts to explain the normative practice of law. Ronald Dworkin has argued against conventionalism by bringing up the phenomenon of persistent fundamental legal controversies, but neither Dworkin nor his legal pos…
Jurisprudential Theories and First-Order Legal Judgments
The nature of the relation between jurisprudential theories and first-order legal judgments is a strangely uncontroversial matter in contemporary legal philosophy. There is one dominant conception of the relation according to which jurisprudential theories are second-order or meta-legal theories that specify the ultimate grounds of first-order legal judgments. According to this conception, difficult first-order legal disputes are to be resolved b…
Dimensions of Normativity: New Essays on Metaethics and Jurisprudence
A New Interpretivist Metasemantics for Fundamental Legal Disagreements
What does it take for lawyers and others to think or talk about the same legal topic—e.g., defamation, culpability? We argue that people are able to think or talk about the same topic not when they possess a matching substantive understanding of the topic, as traditional metasemantics says, but instead when their thoughts or utterances are related to each other in certain ways. And what determines the content of thoughts and utterances is what wo…
The Limits of Metalinguistic Negotiation: The Role of Shared Meanings in Normative Debate
According to philosophical orthodoxy, the parties to moral or legal disputes genuinely disagree only if their uses of key normative terms in the dispute express the same meaning. Recently, however, this orthodoxy has been challenged. According to an influential alternative view, genuine moral and legal disagreements should be understood as metalinguistic negotiations over which meaning a given term should have. In this paper, we argue that the sh…
Epistemology (5 works) · Philosophy (5 works) · Sociology (4 works) · Free Will and Agency (3 works) · Law (3 works) · Legal principles and applications (3 works) · Philosophical Ethics and Theory (3 works) · Political science (3 works) · Computer Science (2 works) · Legal profession (2 works)