Single Idea 15084

[catalogued under 10. Modality / A. Necessity / 6. Logical Necessity]

Full Idea

McFetridge's view proves that if the conditional corresponding to a valid inference is logically necessary, then there is no sense in which it is possible that its antecedent be true but its consequent false. ..This result generalises to any statement.

Gist of Idea

In the McFetridge view, logical necessity means a consequent must be true if the antecedent is


report of Ian McFetridge (Logical Necessity: Some Issues [1986]) by Bob Hale - Absolute Necessities 2

Book Reference

-: 'Philosophical Perspectives' [-], p.97

A Reaction

I am becoming puzzled by Hale's assertion that logical necessity is 'absolute', while resting his case on a conditional. Are we interested in the necessity of the inference, or the necessity of the consequent?

Related Idea

Idea 15083 The fundamental case of logical necessity is the valid conclusion of an inference [McFetridge, by Hale]