Articulates the problem of dimensional variability in evaluative language semantics, suggesting implications for value theory.
Value monists and pluralists disagree how many dimensions of value there fundamentally are. A semantics for evaluative language should be able to explain our use of words like ‘good’ to state and debate monist and pluralist positions. It’s unclear just what kind of semantics may best achieve this. How can ‘good’ be used to state monist positions about value if it’s semantically associated with a multidimensional scale or pluralist positions if it’s semantically associated with a unidimensional scale? This paper articulates the problem of dimensional variability, describes two solutions, and offers a partial defence of one of them.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
I—Pekka Väyrynen (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: