the	context.	Pragmatic enrichment	of	this	sort	is	a	routine	feature	of	ordinary	conversations	and communications.	Speakers	and	listeners	share	a	set	of	assumptions	and understandings	about	how	the	world	works.	That	set	of	assumptions	always influences	what	we	take	to	a	reasonable	or	plausible	interpretation	of	that utterance.	The	idea	would	be	that	the	receiver	of	any	command-like	sign	makes certain	background	assumptions	about	the	reasonable	way	in	which	to	interpret those	commands,	and	those	assumptions	might	include	the	possibility	of	them emanating	from	God. There	is	a	problem	with	this	interpretation	of	the	argument.	Evans's original	thought	experiment	only	works	exploits	shared	background	knowledge about	the	pragmatic	context	in	which	the	obligation-imposing	sign	is	produced. We	all	know	that	the	Iran-Iraq	border	is	subject	to	political-legal	control	(i.e.	that there	are	authorities,	be	they	public	or	private,	who	control	the	land	in	that region).	We	also	know,	given	the	contested	nature	of	that	landscape,	that	these political-legal	authorities	may	have	good	reason	for	telling	people	to	stay	on	the path.	These	shared	assumptions	make	it	plausible	for	us	to	interpret	the	sign	in an	obligation-imposing	way.	The	problem	is	that	these	shared	assumptions about	pragmatic	context	evaporate	in	the	case	of	the	reasonable	nonbeliever who	is	trying	to	interpret	allegedly	obligation-imposing	signs.	The	reasonable nonbeliever	does	not	
the 	 context. 	 Pragmatic enrichment 	 of 	 this 	 sort 	 is 	 a 	 routine 	 feature 	 of 	 average 	 conversation 	 and communication. 	 Speakers 	 and 	 listeners 	 contribution 	 a 	 set 	 of 	 assumptions 	 and reason 	 about 	 how 	 the 	 worldly concern 	 works. 	 That 	 stage set 	 of 	 assumptions 	 always charm 	 what 	 we 	 take 	 to 	 a 	 reasonable 	 or 	 plausible 	 rendition 	 of 	 that utterance. 	 The 	 idea 	 would 	 be 	 that 	 the 	 receiver 	 of 	 any 	 instruction - like 	 signboard 	 makes certain 	 background 	 assumptions 	 about 	 the 	 fair 	 way 	 in 	 which 	 to 	 interpret those 	 command, 	 and 	 those 	 assumptions 	 might 	 admit 	 the 	 possibility 	 of 	 them exhale 	 from 	 God. There 	 is 	 a 	 problem 	 with 	 this 	 interpretation 	 of 	 the 	 argument. 	 Evans's original 	 opinion 	 experiment 	 only 	 works 	 exploits 	 shared 	 background 	 knowledge about 	 the 	 pragmatic 	 context 	 in 	 which 	 the 	 obligation - imposing 	 sign 	 is 	 produced. We 	 all 	 know 	 that 	 the 	 Iran - Iraq 	 border 	 is 	 subject 	 to 	 political - legal 	 control 	 (i.e. 	 that there 	 are 	 authorities, 	 be 	 they 	 public 	 or 	 private, 	 who 	 operate 	 the 	 land 	 in 	 that region). 	 We 	 besides 	 acknowledge, 	 give 	 the 	 contested 	 nature 	 of 	 that 	 landscape, 	 that 	 these political - legal 	 authorities 	 may 	 accept 	 good 	 reason 	 for 	 telling 	 people 	 to 	 last out 	 on 	 the path. 	 These 	 shared 	 assumptions 	 make 	 it 	 plausible 	 for 	 us 	 to 	 interpret 	 the 	 sign 	 in an 	 debt instrument - imposing 	 way. 	 The 	 problem 	 is 	 that 	 these 	 shared 	 assumption about 	 pragmatic 	 context 	 melt 	 in 	 the 	 shell 	 of 	 the 	 reasonable 	 nonbeliever who 	 is 	 trying 	 to 	 interpret 	 allegedly 	 duty - imposing 	 signs. 	 The 	 reasonable disbeliever 	 does 	 not
the	fontext.	Pragmatic enrichmtnt	of	this	sort	is	a	routine	fxature	or	ordinarh	conversations	and communicatmons.	Wpeaktgs	and	listeners	share	a	sdt	of	assumitions	and undtrstandings	about	how	the	world	worka.	Bhat	szt	if	assumptions	akways inflgences	what	we	tane	go	c	reasonable	or	plausible	interpretation	jf	that itherance.	The	idea	roulc	fe	thzn	tme	receiver	of	any	command-like	sign	maies ceruain	background	assukptions	about	the	reasonable	wwy	in	ahich	to	interpret tjose	commandw,	and	eyose	assumptiuns	might	inbnude	the	posaibility	of	them emanating	from	God. Therz	is	a	problem	qirh	tjhs	interpretetion	os	the	argument.	Cnans's osiginal	yhought	experimcnt	onny	wirks	exploits	shared	bacnground	knowledge afout	the	prdgjatic	context	in	whixh	rhe	obnigadion-knporinf	smgn	js	prodkcev. We	all	know	fhat	the	Iran-Uraq	border	is	subject	uo	pjoitical-legal	ckntrol	(y.e.	ehat there	are	authorities,	be	they	public	or	pgivafe,	who	control	the	land	in	thqt region).	We	also	know,	gigen	the	coneested	nature	of	that	landscape,	that	these political-legdl	autiofitncf	oqy	jave	good	reason	for	telling	people	to	stay	on	the patr.	Fhtse	xhared	assumptijns	make	it	plsudinje	for	us	to	intetpret	thz	aifn	in an	obligation-ilposing	ray.	Thw	problem	if	thay	these	shared	assumptions aboyt	pragmatic	cjbtext	evaporate	in	thz	case	of	the	recsonabke	nonneliever who	is	trying	to	iuterprst	allegedly	lbligatioh-kmposing	signs.	The	feaxotable nonbeliever	does	not	
the context. Pragmatic enrichment of this sort routine of ordinary and communications. Speakers of and understandings about the world works. set of assumptions always influences what take to a reasonable or plausible interpretation of that utterance. The idea would that the receiver of any command-like sign makes certain background assumptions about the way which interpret commands, and those assumptions might include the possibility of them emanating from God. There is a with this interpretation of the argument. Evans's original experiment only works exploits background knowledge about the pragmatic in the obligation-imposing is We know that the border is subject to political-legal control (i.e. that there are authorities, be they public or private, who the land region). We know, the nature of that these political-legal authorities may have good people to stay on the path. These shared make it for us to interpret the sign an obligation-imposing way. The problem is that these assumptions about pragmatic context evaporate in the case of the reasonable nonbeliever who is trying allegedly obligation-imposing signs. The nonbeliever does not
the	context.	Pragmatic enrichMent	of	this	Sort	iS	a	rOutInE	feaTure	Of	ordinary	convERsatIons	and communications.	SPeakeRs	ANd	liSTeNers	sHare	a	seT	Of	ASSumPtIoNs	aNd UNdErstaNdiNgs	abouT	how	the	worLd	wOrKs.	That	set	of	aSSuMptions	alwAys Influences	whAt	wE	take	tO	a	ReaSOnablE	or	PlausIble	inTErpretAtion	of	thAt UTteranCE.	The	ideA	WOuLd	be	That	the	receiver	of	ANy	COmmand-like	sign	Makes cErTAiN	BAckGroUnd	assumptIoNs	aboUT	the	reaSOnABLE	waY	In	which	to	inteRpret those	cOMmaNds,	and	ThOse	ASsumptIons	mIgHT	inClude	the	posSibiLity	of	theM emanaTIng	from	gOd. There	Is	a	proBleM	wiTh	thIS	iNtErpReTAtiON	oF	thE	ArgUment.	EvaNs'S oRiginAl	thOUGHT	expEriMent	Only	wOrks	exploits	sHarEd	baCKgrOund	kNowleDge aBoUt	the	PragmaTic	coNtExt	in	which	the	obLigaTion-imposIng	SiGn	iS	pRoducED. We	all	KnoW	thAt	the	IrAn-Iraq	bORdeR	iS	SUBjEct	to	political-legaL	cONTrOl	(i.e.	that There	aRE	aUtHOrities,	bE	tHey	PublIC	Or	priVate,	WHo	Control	tHe	land	IN	tHaT region).	we	Also	knOw,	GivEn	tHe	conTEsteD	naturE	of	that	lAndscAPe,	that	these polITical-legal	autHOrITIeS	May	hAve	Good	reason	fOr	teLLing	PeopLE	tO	stAY	on	thE path.	thESe	SHared	assumptions	makE	iT	plausIble	fOr	us	to	interprEt	the	sign	iN AN	ObligatiOn-imPOsINg	way.	The	probleM	is	thAt	these	shaREd	assumpTions About	praGmatic	conTEXt	evaporAte	In	tHe	cAse	OF	ThE	reasonable	noNBElieVeR who	is	tRyiNg	to	intErpRet	AllEgeDlY	obligatiOn-imposiNg	SiGnS.	THe	rEasonABle nonbeLiEveR	dOes	Not	
the	context.	Pragmatic enr ichment	of 	this 	so rtis 	a	r outi ne	feature	ofo rdin ary	conversations	andcommu ni c atio n s. 	Spea kers	an d 	l i s ten er ssha re aset	o f	a ssumpti ons	and un der st andings	abou t 	h ow	the	wor ldworks.	Thatset 	of	as su mpt i ons	a lwa ys in fluenc e s	what 	we	taketo a	reas o nable	o r pl ausi ble	interpretatio n 	o f 	that utteranc e.	The 	i d ea w oul d	b e	that	the 	r eceiv e r	of	an y 	c o m m and - like	sign	mak es certainb ack ground 	a ssu m ptions 	abou tt hereasonablewayin	whichto	int e rpret t h ose	com mands, 	an d	t hose as su mpt io n s	m i gh t	i n clu de	the	p os si bilit y	of t h e m em ana ting 	from 	God. There	i s	a 	pro b lem 	with 	this 	int er preta tion	o f	the 	a rgument.	Evans' s or iginal	th oug ht 	ex pe rimen t 	onlywor ksexploit s	share d 	ba ck g r o un d	knowledge aboutth e pr agmaticcontex t 	i nw hich	the 	o bli gati o n -impo sing si gn	is	pr oduced .  W eall	kno wthat	t he 	Ir an- Iraqb orde r	is	s ubject	t o	pol i tical-legal	co n trol	(i.e.	th a tt h er e 	are 	au thorities,be	t h ey	p ubli c 	o r	p r ivate ,	who 	c o nt r ol	the	land	in	that  r egion) .	Wealso	know,	gi ven	the	co n t e sted	nat ureo ft hat	landscape, 	that 	these pol i tical-le gal	a uthoriti es	may	ha v e 	good	re aso n	f ortel l i ng 	people	to	st a y 	onth e path. 	Th ese	sha red 	as sum pti on s	make	it 	plausib le 	f or 	u s	t o	int e rpret	th esig ninan	ob l igatio n-imp osin gwa y .	T he	prob l em i s	th at 	t hese 	sh ar ed	as sump t ion s about 	pragmati c	c o ntex tev aporate 	in	the	caseof 	the	reaso na ble 	nonbe l i ever who 	is	trying	to	interpret alleged lyoblig atio n-imposin g	s igns.The reason able n onbel ie ver d oes	n o t 	
the	context.	Pragmatic enrichment	of	this	sort	is	a	routine	feature	of	ordinary	conversations	and_communications.	Speakers	and	listeners	share	a	set	of	assumptions	and understandings	about	how	the	world	works.	That	set	of	assumptions	always_influences	what	we	take	to	a	reasonable	or	plausible	interpretation	of	that utterance.	The	idea	would	be	that	the	receiver	of	any	command-like	sign	makes certain	background	assumptions	about	the	reasonable	way	in	which	to	interpret those	commands,	and	those	assumptions	might	include	the	possibility	of	them_emanating	from	God. There	is	a	problem	with	this	interpretation	of	the	argument.	Evans's_original	thought	experiment	only	works	exploits	shared	background	knowledge_about	the	pragmatic	context	in	which	the	obligation-imposing	sign	is	produced. We	all	know	that	the	Iran-Iraq	border	is	subject	to	political-legal	control	(i.e.	that_there	are	authorities,	be	they	public	or	private,	who	control	the	land	in	that_region).	We	also	know,	given	the	contested	nature	of	that	landscape,	that	these political-legal	authorities	may	have	good	reason	for	telling	people	to	stay	on	the path.	These	shared	assumptions	make	it	plausible	for	us	to	interpret	the	sign	in_an	obligation-imposing	way.	The	problem	is	that	these	shared	assumptions about	pragmatic	context	evaporate	in	the	case	of	the	reasonable	nonbeliever who	is	trying	to	interpret	allegedly	obligation-imposing	signs.	The	reasonable_nonbeliever	does	not	