Emotions seem to be epistemically assessable: fear of an onrushing truck is epistemically justified whereas, mutatis mutandis, fear of a peanut rolling on the floor is not. But there is a difficulty in understanding why emotions are epistemically assessable. It is clear why beliefs, for instance, are epistemically assessable: epistemic assessability is, arguably, assessability with respect to likely truth, and belief is by its nature concerned with truth; truth is, we might say, belief’s “formal object.” Emotions, however, have formal objects (...) different from truth: the formal object of fear is danger, the formal object of indignation is injustice, and so on. Why, then, are emotions epistemically assessable too? Here we make a negative claim and a positive claim. On the negative side, we consider how cognitivist and perceptualist accounts of emotion may respond to this challenge, and argue against those responses. On the positive side, we develop an alternative picture of the domain of the epistemically evaluable, according to which any mental state which is constitutively evidence-responsive is epistemically assessable, regardless of whether its formal object is truth. (shrink)

While it is commonly accepted that justified beliefs must be strongly supported by evidence and that support comes in degrees, the question of how much evidential support one needs in order to have a justified belief remains. In this paper, I consider how the question about degrees of evidential support connects with recent debates between consequentialist and deontological explanations of epistemic norms. I argue that explaining why strong, but not conclusive, evidential support is required for justification should be one explanandum (...) that such theories seek to explain. Furthermore, I argue that foundational theories that appeal to the promotion of epistemic value (especially consequentialism, but perhaps also some versions of epistemic deontology) are better suited to provide such an explanation. (shrink)

Typically, it is thought that if the comparative coolness of epistemic judgment is a problem for the defense of epistemic blameworthiness, this is because of some essential role that emotions play in blame itself. In this paper, I argue that even if blame does not require emotion, there remains an important tension between the claims that we are epistemically blameworthy for our epistemic failings and the claim that epistemic judgment is generally unemotional. I argue that, in the moral case, regardless (...) of one’s account of moral blame, the moral blaming emotions allow us to phenomenally grasp propositions about moral blameworthiness and so to appreciate its significance in an important way. If epistemic judgment is emotionally cool, then we lack this mode of access to facts about epistemic blameworthiness and, I argue, are therefore unable to phenomenally grasp them. This would put pressure on defenders of epistemic blameworthiness to consider more carefully the question of whether epistemic blame does sometimes involve blaming emotions and to provide a picture of what those kinds of emotional responses typically look like. (shrink)