Abstract
When discussing problems in theory of knowledge we often find ourselves using a terminology that is characteristically ethical. We may ask what it is that distinguishes a good hypothesis or explanation from a bad one. We may affirm or deny that mere simplicity can sometimes make one hypothesis preferable to another. We may say that we ought to trust our memories to the extent that they cohere with one another. We may decide that this or that kind of inference to theoretical entities ispermissible. We may wonder if we could ever have the right to accept a theory if we knew of an equally plausible, but incompatible, alternative. And so forth. Facts of this kind suggest that epistemological questions are a species of ethical questions, and that epistemic concepts are reducible to ethical concepts to whatever extent this entails.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
An analysis of ‘epistemic preferability,’ of this general type though more complicated, is proposed by R.M. Chisholm in his Person and Object, Allen and Unwin, London, 1976, p. 176. My discussion of this type of analysis, in particular what I say about circularity, is intended to be general enough to apply to Chisholm’s proposal.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1978 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Firth, R. (1978). Are Epistemic Concepts Reducible to Ethical Concepts?. In: Goldman, A.I., Kim, J. (eds) Values and Morals. Philosophical Studies Series in Philosophy, vol 13. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7634-5_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7634-5_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-8352-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-7634-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive