Which concepts should we use to think and talk about the world and to do all of the other things that mental and linguistic representation facilitates? This is the guiding question of the field that we call ‘conceptual ethics’. Conceptual ethics is not often discussed as its own systematic branch of normative theory. A case can nevertheless be made that the field is already quite active, with contributions coming in from areas as diverse as fundamental metaphysics and social/political philosophy. In this pair of papers, we try to unify the field, reflecting on its basic nature, structure, and methodology.

Which concepts should we use to think and talk about the world, and to do all of the other things that mental and linguistic representation facilitates? This is the guiding question of the field that we call 'conceptual ethics'. Conceptual ethics is not often discussed as its own systematic branch of normative theory. A case can nevertheless be made that the field is already quite active, with contributions coming in from areas as diverse as fundamental metaphysics and social/political philosophy. In this pair of papers, we try to unify the field, reflecting on its basic nature, structure, and methodology.

In recent years, there has been growing discussion amongst philosophers about "conceptual engineering". Put roughly, conceptual engineering concerns the assessment and improvement of concepts, or of other devices we use in thought and talk (e.g., words). This often involves attempts to modify our existing concepts (or other representational devices), and/or our practices of using them. This paper explores the relation between conceptual engineering and conceptual ethics, where conceptual ethics is taken to encompass normative and evaluative questions about concepts, words, and other broadly "representational" and/or "inferential" devices we use in thought and talk. We take some of the central questions in conceptual ethics to concern which concepts we should use and what words should mean, and why. We put forward a view of conceptual engineering in terms of the following three activities: conceptual ethics, conceptual innovation, and conceptual implementation. On our view, conceptual engineering can be defined in terms of these three activities, but not in a straightforward, Boolean way. Conceptual engineering, we argue, is made up of mereologically complex activities whose parts fall into the categories associated with each of these three different activities. K E Y W O R D S concepts, conceptual engineering, conceptual ethics, philosophical methodology, philosophy of language 2 See Scharp (2013). For connected discussion, see Eklund (2014). 3 See Haslanger (2000). Note that we are here (and in the rest of this paragraph) focusing on one influential strand of Haslanger's work on this topic, chiefly as articulated in Haslanger (2000). Importantly, not all of Haslanger's work on race and gender involves this self-understanding in terms of replacing our current concepts with new ones. See Haslanger (2005) for a different self-interpretation, and Haslanger (2020) for more recent reflection. 4 Haslanger (2000).

No abstract

Suppose our ordinary notion of truth is 'inconsistent' in the sense that its meaning is partly given by principles that classically entail a logical contradiction. Should we replace the notion with a consistent surrogate? This paper begins by defusing various arguments in favor of this revisionary proposal, including Kevin Scharp's contention that we need to replace truth for the purposes of semantic theorizing (and thus, in particular, to formulate the inconsistency theory of truth itself). Borrowing a certain conservative metasemantic principle from Matti Eklund, the article goes on to build a positive case for the opposite policy: retaining truth as-is. The thought is basically that bivalence for the bulk of what we say in the course of ordinary, scientific, and philosophical inquiry should suffice to justify keeping 'true'. Two versions of the story are told: one more philosophical, drawing on an analogy to Lewis' response to Putnam's paradox; the other more technical, invoking a deviant strand of mathematical work on the semantic paradoxes.