	faced	by	the	reasonable	non-believer	is	similar.	Hence there	might	be	knowledge	sufficient	to	generate	an	obligation	to	obey	in	their case	too. There	are	two	ways	in	which	to	interpret	this	argument.	One,	which	I shall	call	the	pragmatic	enrichment	interpretation,	seems	to	be	implied	by Wielenberg	in	his	response	to	Evans's	argument	(Wielenberg	2014).	Pragmatic enrichment	is	the	well-known	linguistic	phenomenon	whereby	the	meaning	of an	utterance	is	enriched	by	the	pragmatic	context	in	which	it	was	uttered.14	So, for	example,	I	might	say	to	you	'Close	all	the	doors'.	In	saying	this	I	am	issuing	a command,	but	what	does	it	require	you	to	do?	I	surely	cannot	mean	for	you	to close	all	the	doors	in	the	world.	That	would	be	extreme,	but	that	interpretation	is consistent	with	the	literal	meaning	of	the	utterance.	As	it	happens,	however,	I	say this	to	you	while	we	are	sitting	in	a	room	with	two	open	doors.	This	is	the pragmatic	context	in	which	the	command	was	issued.	Given	that	pragmatic context,	you	rightly	interpret	the	command	to	mean	that	you	should	close	the 13 This phrasing seems crucial. It suggests that, within the thought experiment, there is a live epistemic possibility that the commands come from some particular source. 14 Linguistic philosophers distinguish between semantics, which has to do with the general conventional meanings, and pragmatics, which has to do with the token-specific properties of an utterance. 21 two	open	doors.	The	meaning	has	thus	been	enriched	by	
faced 	 by 	 the 	 reasonable 	 non - believer 	 is 	 similar. 	 Hence there 	 might 	 be 	 cognition 	 sufficient 	 to 	 render 	 an 	 obligation 	 to 	 obey 	 in 	 their case 	 excessively. There 	 are 	 two 	 means 	 in 	 which 	 to 	 interpret 	 this 	 argument. 	 One, 	 which 	 I shall 	 address 	 the 	 hardheaded 	 enrichment 	 interpretation, 	 look 	 to 	 be 	 implied 	 by Wielenberg 	 in 	 his 	 response 	 to 	 Evans's 	 argumentation 	 (Wielenberg 	 2014). 	 Pragmatic enrichment 	 is 	 the 	 well - known 	 linguistic 	 phenomenon 	 whereby 	 the 	 meaning 	 of an 	 utterance 	 is 	 enrich 	 by 	 the 	 matter-of-fact 	 context 	 in 	 which 	 it 	 was 	 uttered.14 	 So, for 	 example, 	 I 	 might 	 say 	 to 	 you 	' Close 	 all 	 the 	 doors'. 	 In 	 say 	 this 	 I 	 am 	 issuing 	 a command, 	 but 	 what 	 does 	 it 	 require 	 you 	 to 	 practice? 	 I 	 surely 	 cannot 	 mean 	 for 	 you 	 to close 	 all 	 the 	 doors 	 in 	 the 	 world. 	 That 	 would 	 be 	 extreme, 	 but 	 that 	 rendition 	 is consistent 	 with 	 the 	 actual 	 meaning 	 of 	 the 	 utterance. 	 As 	 it 	 happens, 	 however, 	 I 	 say this 	 to 	 you 	 while 	 we 	 are 	 sitting 	 in 	 a 	 room 	 with 	 two 	 open 	 doorway. 	 This 	 is 	 the pragmatic 	 context 	 in 	 which 	 the 	 command 	 was 	 issued. 	 Given 	 that 	 pragmatic context, 	 you 	 rightly 	 translate 	 the 	 command 	 to 	 mean 	 that 	 you 	 should 	 close 	 the 13 This phrasing seems crucial. It suggests that, within the thought experiment, there is a live epistemic possibility that the command come from some particular generator. 14 Linguistic philosopher distinguish between semantics, which has to serve with the general conventional meanings, and pragmatics, which get to do with the token - specific properties of an utterance. 21 two 	 open 	 door. 	 The 	 meaning 	 has 	 thus 	 been 	 enriched 	 by
	facfd	by	the	reasonable	non-belitver	is	similar.	Hencg rhere	mmght	be	khowledge	rufficient	to	generate	an	obligavion	ro	obet	in	their case	too. There	xre	two	wayd	in	which	ro	inuerpret	this	argumeif.	One,	whigk	I shzpl	cano	the	pragmatic	ekrichment	inderpretation,	seamr	tl	be	implied	by Wielenberg	in	his	responsq	to	Evanx's	wrgument	(Wielenferg	2014).	Kradmatjb tnrichment	is	the	well-known	linguistid	phenomtnon	whereby	the	meanong	of an	utterance	is	enrichef	by	tje	pragmatic	context	ln	which	it	waw	uttqeed.14	So, for	exaople,	I	might	say	to	you	'Closg	all	the	doors'.	In	saying	this	I	am	issuivg	a cpmmand,	but	wyar	dofv	it	require	yiu	to	dj?	I	surely	cannot	mean	fos	you	to vlose	all	the	doovs	in	tie	woeld.	That	would	be	extreme,	uut	that	interpretatiog	is consivtznt	with	the	literal	meanunt	of	thg	uttesancd.	Qs	ig	hakpeis,	hkwever,	L	sab this	to	you	shile	we	are	sutting	in	a	room	with	twp	o[vm	doors.	This	is	fhe prwgiatic	context	in	which	the	command	was	issued.	Gpven	fhat	pragmatic context,	yoy	rightly	interpret	the	clmmand	to	mqan	that	you	should	close	the 13 This phrasing seems cruwial. Mt suyncsts rhwt, within the thought experiment, there is a lybe eiistemic possibillty that the commamdd vjme from some partiehlzr source. 14 Linguishic phijosopyers distynguosh between semantics, which has to do wpth rhe general convencional meaniugs, anc prabmatics, which has to do witg the token-dpecific lfoperties of an jttvranwe. 21 two	okdn	doors.	The	meaning	ras	thus	bexn	enrnched	by	
faced by the reasonable non-believer is similar. might knowledge sufficient generate an obligation too. are two ways which to interpret argument. One, which I shall call pragmatic enrichment interpretation, seems to be implied by Wielenberg in his response to argument (Wielenberg 2014). Pragmatic enrichment is the well-known linguistic phenomenon whereby the meaning an is by pragmatic context in which it was uttered.14 So, for example, I might say to you 'Close the doors'. In saying this I am issuing command, but what does require you to do? I cannot for you close the in the world. would be extreme, but that interpretation is consistent with the literal meaning of the utterance. As it however, I to you we sitting a room with doors. This is the pragmatic context command was issued. Given that pragmatic context, you interpret the to mean that you should close 13 This phrasing seems crucial. It suggests that, the thought experiment, there is a live epistemic possibility that the commands come from some 14 Linguistic philosophers distinguish semantics, which has do the conventional and pragmatics, has to do with the token-specific properties of an utterance. 21 open doors. The meaning has thus been enriched by
	faced	by	the	reasonable	non-beLiever	is	siMilar.	henCe tHeRe	miGht	bE	knowledge	suffICienT	to	generate	an	obligatioN	to	obEy	IN	theIR cAse	toO. There	aRE	tWO	WayS	iN	wHicH	tO	InTerprEt	tHis	arguMent.	One,	whiCh	I ShAll	call	the	prAGmAtic	enrichMenT	interpretatIon,	Seems	tO	bE	imPLied	bY WiElenbErg	in	hIS	respoNse	to	EvanS's	ARgumenT	(wielenbERG	2014).	PRagmAtic enrichment	is	tHE	wELl-known	linguisTic	pheNoMEnON	WheRebY	the	meaninG	oF an	utTErance	iS	EnRICHed	BY	the	pragmatic	Context	in	whICh	iT	was	utTeRed.14	sO, for	exAmple,	i	mIGht	Say	to	you	'CloSe	alL	the	doors'.	in	sayiNG	this	I	aM	Issuing	A commaNd,	bUt	wHat	dOEs	It	ReqUiRE	yoU	To	Do?	I	SUreLy	cannot	MeAn	For	yoU	to cLOSE	All	tHe	dOors	In	the	World.	That	woulD	be	ExtrEMe,	bUt	thaT	inteRpreTaTion	iS consiStent	WiTh	the	literal	meaNing	Of	the	utteRanCe.	as	iT	hAppenS,	HoweveR,	I	sAy tHis	to	yoU	while	wE	Are	SiTTINg	In	a	room	with	two	open	DoORS.	THis	is	the PragmaTIc	CoNText	in	whIcH	thE	comMANd	was	IssuED.	GIven	that	PragmaTIc CoNtext,	yoU	rIghtly	InTerPreT	the	cOMmanD	to	meaN	that	you	ShoulD	Close	the 13 This phRAsing seems cruCIaL. iT sUGgesTs tHat, within thE thoUGht eXperIMeNt, tHEre is A live EpIStEMic possibility that tHe CommanDs comE from some partIcular sourCE. 14 lInguistiC phiLOsOPhers distinguiSh betWeen semantICs, which hAs to dO with the General coNVEntional MeaNinGs, aNd pRAGmAtics, which has TO Do wiTh The tokeN-spEcific pRopErtIes Of aN uTterance. 21 tWo	open	doOrS.	THe	MeAniNg	has	THus	been	eNrIchEd	By	
	faced	by	the	reasonable	n on-believe r	issim ila r. 	Hen ce t here	might	bek nowl edge	sufficient	to	gen erate 	a n 	obl i ga tionto	obey in t hei rca seto o .There 	ar e	two	w ays	in	whi chto 	interpret	t h is 	argument. 	On e,	which	I s hal l	call 	t hep ragma tic 	enri chment interp retation, 	s e ems	to be	impl i e dby W ielenberg	in	hisr es p onse	to	Evans' s	argu me n t( W iel enb erg	2014). 	P ragma t ic enri c hm e n t 	is the	well-know n	linguisti c 	ph enomen on 	wh e reby	t he	me an i ngof an	utter ance 	is	enric hed	by the	pra g matic	c ontext 	in 	wh ichi twa s	u tt e red . 14 	So ,  fo r	exampl e, 	I 	migh t	sa y t o 	you 	'C lose 	allthe	doors'.	I n	s ayin g 	th is	Iam	is suin ga com mand,but	w ha t	does	it	requi re	y ou	to	do? 	Isu rel ycanno t 	meanfor 	yo u	to cl ose	all the 	d o o r sin	the	world.	That 	w o u ld 	be	extr eme,	b u tth a t	interp re tat ioni s  cons iste n twith	the 	liter a lme aning	o fthe	ut te ran ce. 	As	i t 	hap pens,however, 	I	sa y  this	to	you	w h ile	we	are	si t ti n g 	i n 	a	r oom 	with	two	o pend oors .	Th i sist he pr agmat ic co n text	in	which	the	c om mand	w as	is sued.	Given	t hat	pragma t i c  context ,	yo u 	r i ghtly	interpre t	the 	command	t o 	mean	th at	yo u	should 	close	th e 13 Thisphr asi ngsee m s  c rucial. It su g g ests  t hat, wi thi n the t hou ght  ex per im ent, ther e is a l iv eep is tem ic po s sibility  t hat  t hecomma n ds com e fro m so me  p a rti cular s o ur c e . 14  L in guis tic  p hilos ophe r s d istingu ish betwe ens eman ti cs , which  has to do wi th  the gener al  co nventi o n al meani ngs, and pragmatics, wh i ch hastodo wi th t he token- spe cificpro p erties  of an  utte ra nce . 21 tw o op endo ors.	The	m e a nin g	has 	t husbeen	en riched	by	
	faced	by	the	reasonable	non-believer	is	similar.	Hence there	might	be	knowledge	sufficient	to	generate	an	obligation	to	obey	in	their_case	too. There	are	two	ways	in	which	to	interpret	this	argument.	One,	which	I_shall	call	the	pragmatic	enrichment	interpretation,	seems	to	be	implied	by Wielenberg	in	his	response	to	Evans's	argument	(Wielenberg	2014).	Pragmatic enrichment	is	the	well-known	linguistic	phenomenon	whereby	the	meaning	of an	utterance	is	enriched	by	the	pragmatic	context	in	which	it	was	uttered.14	So,_for	example,	I	might	say	to	you	'Close	all	the	doors'.	In	saying	this	I	am	issuing	a command,	but	what	does	it	require	you	to	do?	I	surely	cannot	mean	for	you	to_close	all	the	doors	in	the	world.	That	would	be	extreme,	but	that	interpretation	is_consistent	with	the	literal	meaning	of	the	utterance.	As	it	happens,	however,	I	say this	to	you	while	we	are	sitting	in	a	room	with	two	open	doors.	This	is	the_pragmatic	context	in	which	the	command	was	issued.	Given	that	pragmatic_context,	you	rightly	interpret	the	command	to	mean	that	you	should	close	the 13 This_phrasing seems crucial._It suggests that, within_the thought experiment,_there_is a live epistemic possibility that the commands come from some particular source. 14_Linguistic_philosophers distinguish_between_semantics,_which has to do with_the general conventional meanings, and_pragmatics, which_has to do with the token-specific properties of_an_utterance. 21 two	open	doors.	The	meaning	has	thus	been	enriched	by	