Switch to: Citations

References in:

Conceptions of Epistemic Value

Episteme 20 (2):213-231 (2023)

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. (1 other version)Ontological relativity and other essays.Willard Van Orman Quine (ed.) - 1969 - New York: Columbia University Press.
    This volume consists of the first of the John Dewey Lectures delivered under the auspices of Columbia University's Philosophy Department as well as other essays by the author. Intended to clarify the meaning of the philosophical doctrines propounded by Professor Quine in 'Word and Objects', the essays included herein both support and expand those doctrines.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1328 citations  
  • The Possibility of Practical Reason.J. David Velleman - 2000 - Philosophical Studies 121 (3):263-275.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   383 citations  
  • Normative Pluralism Worthy of the Name is False.Spencer Case - 2016 - Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 11 (1):1-20.
    Normative pluralism is the view that practical reason consists in an irreducible plurality of normative domains, that these domains sometimes issue conflicting recommendations and that, when this happens, there is never any one thing that one ought simpliciter to do. Here I argue against this view, noting that normative pluralism must be either unrestricted or restricted. Unrestricted pluralism maintains that all coherent standards are reason-generating normative domains, whereas restricted pluralism maintains that only some are. Unrestricted pluralism, depending on how it (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Veritism Unswamped.Kurt Sylvan - 2018 - Mind 127 (506):381-435.
    According to Veritism, true belief is the sole fundamental epistemic value. Epistemologists often take Veritism to entail that all other epistemic items can only have value by standing in certain instrumental relations—namely, by tending to produce a high ratio of true to false beliefs or by being products of sources with this tendency. Yet many value theorists outside epistemology deny that all derivative value is grounded in instrumental relations to fundamental value. Veritists, I believe, can and should follow suit. After (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   53 citations  
  • Deontological evidentialism, wide-scope, and privileged values.Luis R. G. Oliveira - 2017 - Philosophical Studies 174 (2):485-506.
    Deontological evidentialism is the claim that we ought to form and maintain our beliefs in accordance with our evidence. In this paper, I criticize two arguments in its defense. I begin by discussing Berit Broogard’s use of the distinction between narrow-scope and wide-scope requirements against W.K. Clifford’s moral defense of. I then use this very distinction against a defense of inspired by Stephen Grimm’s more recent claims about the moral source of epistemic normativity. I use this distinction once again to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Defending the Moral/Epistemic Parity.Terence Cuneo & Christos Kyriacou - 2018 - In Conor McHugh, Jonathan Way & Daniel Whiting (eds.), Metaepistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Rescuing Companions in Guilt Arguments.Rach Cosker-Rowland - 2016 - Philosophical Quarterly 66 (262):161–171.
    Christopher Cowie has recently argued that companions in guilt arguments against the moral error theory that appeal to epistemic reasons cannot work. I show that such companions in guilt arguments can work if, as we have good reason to believe, moral reasons and epistemic reasons are instances of fundamentally the same relation.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • Good News for Moral Error Theorists: A Master Argument Against Companions in Guilt Strategies.Christopher Cowie - 2016 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 94 (1):115-130.
    Moral error theories are often rejected by appeal to ‘companions in guilt’ arguments. The most popular form of companions in guilt argument takes epistemic reasons for belief as a ‘companion’ and proceeds by analogy. I show that this strategy fails. I claim that the companions in guilt theorist must understand epistemic reasons as evidential support relations if her argument is to be dialectically effective. I then present a dilemma. Either epistemic reasons are evidential support relations or they are not. If (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   28 citations  
  • The Argument from Nominal–Notable Comparisons, ‘Ought All Things Considered’, and Normative Pluralism.Mathea Slåttholm Sagdahl - 2014 - The Journal of Ethics 18 (4):405-425.
    The idea that morality and prudence are incommensurable normative domains—a central idea in normative pluralism—tends to be rejected because of the argument from nominal–notable comparisons. The argument relies on a premise that there are situations of moral–prudential conflict where we have a clear intuition that there are things we ought to do “all things considered”. It is usually concluded that this shows that morality and prudence must be comparable. I argue that normative pluralists, who defend this type of incommensurability, can (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • The Shmagency Question.Matthew Silverstein - 2015 - Philosophical Studies 172 (5):1127-1142.
    Constitutivists hope to locate the foundations of ethics in the nature of action. They hope to find norms that are constitutive of agency. Recently David Enoch has argued that even if there are such norms, they cannot provide the last word when it comes to normativity, since they cannot tell us whether we have reason to be agents rather than shmagents. I argue that the force of the shmagency objection has been considerably overestimated, because philosophers on both sides of the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   38 citations  
  • Moral Error Theory and the Argument from Epistemic Reasons.Rach Cosker-Rowland - 2012 - Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 7 (1):1-24.
    In this paper I defend what I call the argument from epistemic reasons against the moral error theory. I argue that the moral error theory entails that there are no epistemic reasons for belief and that this is bad news for the moral error theory since, if there are no epistemic reasons for belief, no one knows anything. If no one knows anything, then no one knows that there is thought when they are thinking, and no one knows that they (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   42 citations  
  • (3 other versions)Deflationary Normative Pluralism.Sam Black & Evan Tiffany - 2007 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 37 (Supplement):231-262.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • The truth Norm of belief.Conor Mchugh - 2012 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 93 (1):8-30.
    I argue that, if belief is subject to a norm of truth, then that norm is evaluative rather than prescriptive in character. No prescriptive norm of truth is both plausible as a norm that we are subject to, and also capable of explaining what the truth norm of belief is supposed to explain. Candidate prescriptive norms also have implausible consequences for the normative status of withholding belief. An evaluative norm fares better in all of these respects. I propose an evaluative (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   92 citations  
  • Good and Evil.Peter Geach - 1956 - Analysis 17 (2):33 - 42.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   310 citations  
  • Might All Normativity be Queer?Matthew S. Bedke - 2010 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (1):41-58.
    Here I discuss the conceptual structure and core semantic commitments of reason-involving thought and discourse needed to underwrite the claim that ethical normativity is not uniquely queer. This deflates a primary source of ethical scepticism and it vindicates so-called partner in crime arguments. When it comes to queerness objections, all reason-implicating normative claims—including those concerning Humean reasons to pursue one's ends, and epistemic reasons to form true beliefs—stand or fall together.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   42 citations  
  • Constitutivism and the Inescapability of Agency.Luca Ferrero - 2009 - Oxford Studies in Metaethics 4:303-333.
    Constitutivism argues that the source of the categorical force of the norms of rationality and morality lies in the constitutive features of agency. A systematic failure to be guided by these norms would amount to a loss or lack of agency. Since we cannot but be agents, we cannot but be unconditionally guided by these norms. The constitutivist strategy has been challenged by David Enoch. He argues that our participation in agency is optional and thus cannot be a source of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   72 citations  
  • Doxastic deliberation.Nishi Shah & J. David Velleman - 2005 - Philosophical Review 114 (4):497-534.
    Believing that p, assuming that p, and imagining that p involve regarding p as true—or, as we shall call it, accepting p. What distinguishes belief from the other modes of acceptance? We claim that conceiving of an attitude as a belief, rather than an assumption or an instance of imagining, entails conceiving of it as an acceptance that is regulated for truth, while also applying to it the standard of being correct if and only if it is true. We argue (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   384 citations  
  • (1 other version)How truth governs belief.Nishi Shah - 2003 - Philosophical Review 112 (4):447-482.
    Why, when asking oneself whether to believe that p, must one immediately recognize that this question is settled by, and only by, answering the question whether p is true? Truth is not an optional end for first-personal doxastic deliberation, providing an instrumental or extrinsic reason that an agent may take or leave at will. Otherwise there would be an inferential step between discovering the truth with respect to p and determining whether to believe that p, involving a bridge premise that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   343 citations  
  • (1 other version)Firth and the ethics of belief.Roderick M. Chisholm - 1991 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 51 (1):119-128.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • On Some Arguments for Epistemic Value Pluralism.Timothy Perrine - 2020 - Logos and Episteme 11 (1):77-96.
    Epistemic Value Monism is the view that there is only one kind of thing of basic, final epistemic value. Perhaps the most plausible version of Epistemic Value Monism is Truth Value Monism, the view that only true beliefs are of basic, final epistemic value. Several authors—notably Jonathan Kvanvig and Michael DePaul—have criticized Truth Value Monism by appealing to the epistemic value of things other than knowledge. Such arguments, if successful, would establish Epistemic Value Pluralism is true and Epistemic Value Monism (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Moral and Epistemic Error Theory : The Parity Premise Reconsidered.Jonas Olson - 2018 - In Conor McHugh, Jonathan Way & Daniel Whiting (eds.), Metaepistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 107-121.
    Many moral error theorists hold that moral facts are irreducibly normative. They also hold that irreducible normativity is metaphysically queer and conclude that there are no irreducibly normative reasons and consequently no moral facts. A popular response to moral error theory utilizes the so-called ‘companions in guilt’ strategy and argues that if moral reasons are irreducibly normative, then epistemic reasons are too. This is the Parity Premise, on the basis of which critics of moral error theory draw the Parity Conclusion (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Basic Final Value and Zimmerman’s The Nature of Intrinsic Value.Timothy Perrine - 2018 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 21 (4):979-996.
    This paper critically examines Michael Zimmerman’s account of basic final value in The Nature of Intrinsic Value. Zimmerman’s account has several positive features. Unfortunately, as I argue, given one plausible assumption about value his account derives a contradiction. I argue that rejecting that assumption has several implausible results and that we should instead reject Zimmerman’s account. I then sketch an alternative account of basic final value, showing how it retains some of the positive features of Zimmerman’s account while avoiding its (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • From Epistemic to Moral Realism.Spencer Case - 2019 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 16 (5):541-562.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Skepticism about Ought Simpliciter.Derek Clayton Baker - 2018 - Oxford Studies in Metaethics 13.
    There are many different oughts. There is a moral ought, a prudential ought, an epistemic ought, the legal ought, the ought of etiquette, and so on. These oughts can prescribe incompatible actions. What I morally ought to do may be different from what I self-interestedly ought to do. Philosophers have claimed that these conflicts are resolved by an authoritative ought, or by facts about what one ought to do simpliciter or all-things-considered. However, the only coherent notion of an ought simpliciter (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   45 citations  
  • The Right and the Good.W. D. Ross - 1935 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 119 (1):124-124.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   302 citations  
  • (2 other versions)The Right and the Good.W. D. Ross - 1930 - International Journal of Ethics 41 (3):343-351.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   363 citations  
  • Ethics.William Frankena - 1967 - Philosophy of Science 34 (1):74-74.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   294 citations  
  • Why companions in guilt arguments still work: Reply to Cowie.Ramon Das - forthcoming - Philosophical Quarterly:pqv078.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Why Companions in Guilt Arguments Won't Work.Christopher Cowie - 2014 - Philosophical Quarterly 64 (256):407-422.
    One recently popular strategy for avoiding the moral error theory is via a ‘companions in guilt’ argument. I focus on those recently popular arguments that take epistemic facts as a companion in guilt for moral facts. I claim that there is an internal tension between the two main premises of these arguments. It is a consequence of this that either the soundness or the dialectical force of the companions in guilt argument is undermined. I defend this claim via (i) analogy (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   29 citations  
  • How to Be an Epistemic Value Pluralist.David Matheson - 2011 - Dialogue 50 (2):391-405.
    ABSTRACT: In this paper I defend an epistemic value pluralism according to which true belief, justified belief, and knowledge are all fundamental epistemic values. After laying out reasons to reject epistemic value monism in its central forms, I present my pluralist alternative and show how it can adequately explain the greater epistemic value of knowledge over both true belief and justified belief, despite their fundamentality. I conclude with a sketch of how this pluralism might be generalized beyond the epistemic domain (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Just plain "ought''.Owen McLeod - 2001 - The Journal of Ethics 5 (4):269-291.
    Is there any sense to the idea of an ``ought''''that is not relative to any particularnormative framework? This ``ought'''' would not bea moral, prudential, legal, aesthetic, orreligious ``ought,'''' but rather an unqualified or just plain ``ought.'''' Thispaper (i) argues for the existence andusefulness of just plain ``ought''''; (ii) locatesthe concept of just plain ``ought'''' within amajor strand in the history of ethics (namely,the perennial attempt to demonstrate thatmorality and prudence are in harmony); and(iii) challenges David Copp''s recent attempt toshow that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   22 citations  
  • (2 other versions)Normativity.Judith Jarvis Thomson - 2007 - Oxford Studies in Metaethics 2:240-266.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   154 citations  
  • Bad News for Moral Error Theorists: There Is No Master Argument Against Companions in Guilt Strategies.Ramon Das - 2017 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 95 (1):58-69.
    A ‘companions in guilt’ strategy against moral error theory aims to show that the latter proves too much: if sound, it supports an implausible error-theoretic conclusion in other areas such as epistemic or practical reasoning. Christopher Cowie [2016 Cowie, C. 2016. Good News for Moral Error Theorists: A Master Argument Against Companions in Guilt Strategies, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 94/1: 115–30.[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] [Google Scholar]] has recently produced what he claims is a ‘master argument’ against (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • Getting Lost on the Road to Larissa 1.Michael Ridge - 2011 - Noûs 47 (1):181-201.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • Epistemic value: Truth or explanation?David Resnik - 1994 - Metaphilosophy 25 (4):348-361.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Critical Notices.Michael Zimmerman - 2007 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 69 (2):492-497.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   91 citations  
  • Epistemological Duties.Richard Feldman - 2002 - In Paul K. Moser (ed.), The Oxford handbook of epistemology. New York: Oxford University Press.
    In “Epistemological Duties,” Richard Feldman uses three main questions to illuminate the topic of epistemological duties. What are our epistemological duties? After suggesting that epistemological duties pertain to the development of appropriate cognitive attitudes, Feldman asks What makes a duty epistemological? and How do epistemological duties interact with other kinds of duties? His pursuit of contributes to his response to in that he uses it to argue that a concept of distinctly epistemological duty must exclude practical and moral duties that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   53 citations  
  • (3 other versions)Deflationary Normative Pluralism.Sam Black & Evan Tiffany - 2007 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 37 (sup1):231-262.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • In Defense of Veritistic Value Monism.Kristoffer Ahlstrom-Vij - 2013 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 94 (1):19-40.
    Recently, veritistic value monism, i.e. the idea that true belief is unique in being of fundamental epistemic value, has come under attack by pluralist philosophers arguing that it cannot account fully for the domain of epistemic value. However, the relevant arguments fail to establish any such thing. For one thing, there is a presumption of monism due to considerations about axiological parsimony. While such a presumption would be defeated by evidence that the relevant kind of monism cannot account fully for (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   30 citations  
  • Meno and the Monist.Kristoffer Ahlstrom-Vij - 2013 - Metaphilosophy 44 (1-2):157-170.
    Recent critiques of veritistic value monism, or the idea that true belief is unique in being of fundamental epistemic value, typically invoke a claim about the surplus value of knowledge over mere true belief, in turn traced back to Plato's Meno. However, to the extent Plato at all defends a surplus claim in the Meno, it differs from that figuring in contemporary discussions with respect to both its scope and the kind of value at issue, and is under closer scrutiny (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Stephen P. Stich: The Fragmentation of Reason.Alvin I. Goldman - 1991 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 51 (1):189-193.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations