Brink, Legal Theory Article
 Intensionalist theory = when we use a word, it is determined by the criteria that we use
for it
o Consequences for disagreement
 Problem: we can often talk past one another, rather than having a real
disagreement
 Ex.: “I’ll meet you by the bank”
o bank (where money is placed) v. bank (on a shore)
 But we can have real disagreements if we disagree over whether an entity
satisfies an agreed-upon criteria
 Ex.: we share the criteria for what defines a word (i.e., we have the
same concept of “bachelor”) but we disagree over whether a given
entity satisfies our agreed-upon criteria
o The disagreement is not over the criteria, but whether the
criteria is satisfied
 Thus, the Intensionalist theory is not patently absurd, b/c this
version of disagreement seems to be a legitimate disagreement
o Scientific Disagreement
 Ex.: Mass
 There is a disagreement over what the criteria for something being mass
is, but Einstein and Newton are not arguing past each other, even though
they are differing over what the criteria is
 They have a general understanding of what “mass” is, even though
they disagree on the criteria
 Can the Intensionalist explain this disagreement as still being meaningful?
 Yes, if an Intensionalist notes that a particular disagreement is over
a word of which there can only be one definition
o i.e., the two meanings of Bank are correct – bank can be a
place to store money, and a place on a shore
o but there is only one meaning of Mass or Justice – even if
people are disagreeing over the criteria, it is not a
meaningless disagreement because there is only one
version of the term that exists out there that they are trying
to determine
 Extensionalist Theory
o Meanings of words are not determined by or controlled by those who interpret
them or internally define criteria
 Rather, meanings of words are determined by something outside and
independent of the personal view; they are beyond an individual mind
 i.e., I can have a personal definition of the criteria of what satisfies a
Beech Tree, but if my view is that Beech Trees are small bushes that grow
tomatoes, no one would say that my view of Beech Trees are accurate
 the real meaning of the word will outstrip your personal view of
the criteria
o Note – not all words have to be extensionalist
o Intensionalist response
 After time, people all have the same internal definition of the criteria for
certain words


i.e., we all know what a chair is because we all share the same
individual definition of a chair’s criteria
Consequences of Interpreting Legal Texts
o Brink – extensionalist is correct, and is especially important in regard to moral
terms
o Do we need to be Extensionalist about morality
 Disagreement about morality shows our commitment about the idea of a
moral reality
 The fact that we are all disagreeing with one another about
morality demonstrates that we are all committed to determining
what is out there, and that there actually is something out there
 But, is there another way to point to disagreement about morality to
believe that there is not anything out there?
 1. It is metaphysically impossible for reality to tell us what to do,
to provide normative concepts
o such normative thought is based on our own intuition and
definitions – reality does not tell us what to do, it just tells
us what is the case
 2. There is no way to observationally verify moral disagreements
o the reason why people disagree about morality is different
than reasons why physicists disagree about physical reality
 the theory of physical reality explains the
knowledge of physical reality and our ignorance of
physical reality
 the problem w/ ethics is that there is no good
causal story about how we know it
o BUT – response is that we don’t have this similar type of
knowledge with other areas that we all agree are
objectively true
 i.e., mathematics
 what motivates the view that there are not ethical qualities is not
just that people disagree over what morality is