Abstract

One path into the semantics of the deontic modals _ought_ and _should_ approaches them indirectly, by starting with an investigation of the non-deontic, seemingly epistemic reading of these modals. Seth Yalcin’s chapter embarks down that path. It has two main objectives. First, a case is made against the idea that _ought_ and _should_ are susceptible to true epistemic readings. These modals admit of a certain reading distinct from, but easily confused with, the epistemic flavor of modality. It is suggested that this “pseudo-epistemic” reading suffices to explain the data that have prompted theorists to suppose that there is a true epistemic reading of these modals. The second objective of this chapter is to explore the nature of the pseudo-epistemic reading, including its relation to normality and the connections between these modals and default reasoning.