Philosophical Studies

, Volume 145, Issue 2, pp 257–272

The possibility of pragmatic reasons for belief and the wrong kind of reasons problem

Article

Abstract

In this paper I argue against the stronger of the two views concerning the right and wrong kind of reasons for belief, i.e. the view that the only genuine normative reasons for belief are evidential. The project in this paper is primarily negative, but with an ultimately positive aim. That aim is to leave room for the possibility that there are genuine pragmatic reasons for belief. Work is required to make room for this view, because evidentialism of a strict variety remains the default view in much of the debate concerning normative reasons for belief. Strict versions of evidentialism are inconsistent with the view that there are genuine pragmatic reasons for belief.

Keywords

Wrong kind of reasons Reasons for belief Evidentialism Theoretical reason Normativity Reasons Pragmatism 

References

  1. Adler, J. (2002). Belief’s own ethics. Cambridge: Bradford Books.Google Scholar
  2. Danielsson, S., Olson, J. (2007). Brentano and buck-passers. Mind, 116, 511–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hájek, A. (2003). Waging war on Pascal’s wager. Philosophical Review, 112, 27–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Harman, G. (1999). Rationality. In Reasoning, meaning, and mind (pp. 9–45). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  5. Hieronymi, P. (2005). The wrong kind of reason. The Journal of Philosophy, 102, 437–457.Google Scholar
  6. Hookway C. (2000). Epistemic norms and theoretical deliberation. In J. Dancy (Ed.), Normativity (pp. 60–77). Oxford, Blackwell Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
  7. Kelly, T. (2002). The rationality of belief and some other propositional attitudes. Journal of Philosophical Research, 110, 163–196.Google Scholar
  8. Olson, J. (2004). Buck-passing and the wrong kind of reasons. The Philosophical Quarterly, 54, 295–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Parfit, D. (2001). Reasons and rationality. In D. Egonsson, J. Josefsson, B. Petersson, & T. Rønnow-Rasmussen (Eds.), Exploring practical rationality (pp. 17–39). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  10. Rabinowicz, W., & Rønnow-Rasmussen, T. (2004). The strike of the demon: On fitting pro-attitudes and value. Ethics, 114, 391–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Railton, P. (1994). Truth, reason, and the regulation of belief. Philosophical Issues, 5, 71–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Reisner, A. (2007). Evidentialism and the numbers game. Theoria, 73, 304–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Reisner, A. (2008). Weighing pragmatic and evidential reasons for belief. Philosophical Studies, 138, 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Shah, N. (2006). A new argument for evidentialism. The Philosophical Quarterly, 56, 481–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Skorupski, J. (1997). Reason and reasons. In G. Cullity & B. Gaut (Eds.), Ethics and practical reason (pp. 345–368). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Skorupski, J. (forthcoming). The unity and diversity of reasons. In S. Robertson & J. Timmermann (Eds.), Spheres of reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Steglich-Petersen, A. (2006). No norm needed: on the aim of belief. The Philosophical Quarterly, 56, 499–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Stratton-Lake, P. (2005). How to deal with evil demons: Comment on Rabinowicz and Rønnow-Rasmussen. Ethics, 115, 788–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stroud, S. (2006). Epistemic partiality and friendship. Ethics, 116, 498–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Williams, B. (1973). Deciding to believe. In Problems of the self (pp. 136–151). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations