In Defense of Right Reason

Abstract

Starting from the premise that akrasia is irrational, I argue that it is always a rational mistake to have false beliefs about the requirements of rationality. Using that conclusion, I defend logical omniscience requirements, the claim that one can never have all-things-considered misleading evidence about what's rational, and the Right Reasons position concerning peer disagreement.

Author's Profile

Michael Titelbaum
University of Wisconsin, Madison

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-09-06

Downloads
674 (#20,559)

6 months
71 (#53,787)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?