Are epistemic reasons perspective-dependent?
- 59 Downloads
This paper focuses on the relation between epistemic reasons and the subject’s epistemic perspective. It tackles the questions of whether epistemic reasons are dependent on the perspective of the subject they are reasons for, and if so, whether they are dependent on the actual or the potential perspective. It is argued that epistemic reasons are either independent or minimally dependent on the subject’s epistemic perspective. In particular, I provide three arguments supporting the conclusion that epistemic reasons are not dependent on the subject’s actual perspective. Furthermore, I show that variants of these arguments apply against popular views holding that epistemic reasons depend on the subject’s potential perspective, such as the view that epistemic reasons are facts that one is in a position to know.
KeywordsEpistemic reasons Perspective-dependence Epistemic normativity Epistemic excuses Unity Thesis
I would like to thank Maria Alvarez, Daniele Bruno, Julien Dutant, Jie Gao, Clayton Littlejohn, Arturs Logins, Veli Mitova and one anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the SIFA Conference in Pistoia, the Department Seminar at Zhejiang University (Hangzhou), the Journées Philosophiques de Gordes 2016, the Workshop ‘The Ontology of Epistemic Reasons’ at the University of Basel, the Joint Session 2017 at the University of Edinburgh, and the Epistemology Seminar at King’s College London. Thanks to the audiences for their helpful feedback. A special thanks goes to Veli Mitova for her careful and insightful commentary of the paper. Research for this article has been partially funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation research project ‘The Unity of Reasons’ (P300P1-164569).
- Baron, M. (2005). Justifications and excuses. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 2(2), 387–406.Google Scholar
- Broome, J. (2004). Reasons. In R. J. Wallace (Ed.), Reason and value: Themes from the moral philosophy of Joseph Raz (pp. 2004–2028). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Conee, E., & Feldman, R. (2008). Evidence. In Q. Smith (Ed.), Epistemology: New essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Dancy, J. (2000). Practical reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Fassio D. (manuscript). Justification, Conformity, and the Norm of Belief.Google Scholar
- Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Kearns, S., & Star, D. (2009). Reasons as evidence. In R. Shafer-Landau (Ed.), Oxford studies in metaethics (Vol. 4, pp. 215–242). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Kelly, T. (2016). Evidence. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/evidence/.
- Kratzer, A. (2008). Modality. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantics. An international handbook of contemporary research (pp. 639–650). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
- Kratzer, A. (2012). Modals and conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Littlejohn, C. (2011). Reasons and belief’s justification. In A. Reisner & A. Steglich-Petersen (Eds.), Reasons for belief. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Littlejohn, C. (2018). Evidence and its limits. In C. McHugh, J. Way & D. Whiting (Eds.), Normativity: Epistemic and practical (pp. 115–136). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Littlejohn, C. (forthcoming). A plea for epistemic excuses. In J. Dutant (Ed.), The new evil demon problem. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Markovits, J. (2010). Internal reasons and the motivating intuition. In M. Brady (Ed.), New waves in metaethics (pp. 141–165). Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
- McDowell, J. (1994). Mind and world. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- McHugh, C., & Way, J. (2017). Objectivism and perspectivism about the epistemic ought. Ergo, an Open Access Journal of Philosophy, 4(5), 121–145.Google Scholar
- Pollock, J. (1974). Knowledge and justification. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Raz, J. (1978). Practical reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Raz, J. (1999). Engaging reason: On the theory of value and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Raz, J. (2005). The myth of instrumental rationality. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 1(1), 28.Google Scholar
- Reisner, A. (2018). Pragmatic reasons for belief. In D. Star (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of reasons and normativity (pp. 705–729). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Scanlon, T. (1998). What we owe to each other. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Schroeder, M. (2018). The unity of reasons. In The Oxford handbook of reasons and normativity (pp. 46–66). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Sennet, A. (2016). Ambiguity. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/ambiguity/.Google Scholar
- Smith, M. (1994). The moral problem. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Sylvan, K. (2014). Reasons in epistemology. In D. Pritchard (Ed.), Oxford bibliographies online. http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195396577/obo-9780195396577-0183.xml.
- Sylvan, K. (manuscript). Rationality and justification: Reasons to divorce? Google Scholar
- Thomson, J. (1986). Imposing risks. In W. Parent (Ed.), Rights, Restitution, and Risk (pp. 173–191). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Thomson, J. J. (2003). Goodness and advice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Thomson, J. J. (2008). Normativity. Chicago, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
- von Fintel, K., & Gillies, A. S. (2007). An opinionated guide to epistemic modality. In T. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Oxford studies in epistemology (Vol. 2, pp. 32–62). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar