Skip to main content

Some Metaphysical Implications of a Credible Ethics of Belief

  • Chapter
New Essays on Belief

Abstract

The central purpose of this chapter is to discuss some important implications of any credible ethics of belief for the nature of belief. By an “ethics of belief”, we mean an account of what it is to form and hold one’s beliefs responsibly, praiseworthily, or blameworthily. Thus, the aim is to lay out some implications of such an ethics of belief for the metaphysics of belief.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Audi, R. 1979, “Weakness of Will and Practical Judgment”, Noûa 13(2): 173–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 1994, “Dispositional Beliefs and Dispositions to Believe”, Noûs 28(4): 419–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogdan, R.J. 1986, “The Manufacture of Belief”, in Bogdan, R. J. (ed.), Belief Form, Content, and Function. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 149–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booth, A. R., and Peels, R. 2010, “Why Responsible Belief Is Blameless Belief”, The Journal of Philosophy 107(5): 257–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, R. B. 1967, “The Nature of Believing”, in Griffiths, Phillips A. (ed.), Knowledge and Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 28–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchland, P. 1981, “Eliminative Materialism and the Propositional Attitudes”, Journal of Philosophy 78(2): 67–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clifford, W. K. 1999, The Ethics of Belief and Other Essays. Amherst, MA Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L. J. 1989, “Belief and Acceptance”, Mind 98(391): 367–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, J. M. and Ravizza, M. 1993, “Responsibility for Consequences”, in Fischer, J. M. and Ravizza, M. (eds), Perspectives on Moral Responsibility. London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankfurt, H. G. 1969, “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility”, Journal of Philosophy 45: 829–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankish, K. 1998. “A Matter of Opinion”, Philosophical Psychology 11: 423–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hume, D. 1978, A Treatise of Human Nature, Nidditch, P. H. (ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Morvan, Pierre. 2011, “On Ignorance: A Reply to Peels”, Philosophia 39: 335–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lycan, W.G. 1986, “Tacit Belief” in Bogdan, Radu J. (ed.), Belief Form, Content, and Function. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 61–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mele, A. R. 1987. “Akratic Belief”, in Irrationality: An Essay on Akrasia, Self-Deception, and Self-Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 109–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nottelmann, N. 2007, Blameworthy Belief A Study in Epistemic Deontologism. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2011a, “The Deontological Conception of Epistemic Justification: A Reassessment”, Synthese Online First, DOI: 10.1007/s11229–011–9967–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owens, D. 2000, Reason without Freedom: The Problem of Epistemic Normativity. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Peels, R. 2010. “What Is Ignorance?”, Philosophia 38(1): 57–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2011, “Tracing Culpable Ignorance”, Logos and Episteme 2(4): 575–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2012, Believing Responsibly: Intellectual Obligations and Doxastic Excuses, PhD Dissertation (Utrecht University, the Netherlands).

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2013, “Does Doxastic Responsibility Entail the Ability to Believe Otherwise?”, Synthese, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, B. 2001, “Epistemic and Moral Duty”, in Steup, M. (ed.), Knowledge, Truth, and Duty: Essays on Epistemic Justification, Responsibility, and Virtue. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 34–48.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schwitzgebel, E. 2002, “A Phenomenal, Dispositional Account of Belief”, Noûs 36(2): 249–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steup, M. 2000. “Doxastic Voluntarism and Epistemic Deontology”, Acta Analytica 15(1): 25–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, M. J. 2008, Living with Uncertainty: The Moral Significance of Ignorance, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2013 Nikolaj Nottelmann and Rik Peels

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nottelmann, N., Peels, R. (2013). Some Metaphysical Implications of a Credible Ethics of Belief. In: Nottelmann, N. (eds) New Essays on Belief. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137026521_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics