Advertisement

Evidentialism in action

  • A. K. FlowerreeEmail author
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Sometimes it is practically beneficial to believe what is epistemically unwarranted. Philosophers have taken these cases to raise the question are there practical reasons for belief? Evidentialists argue that there cannot be any such reasons. Putative practical reasons for belief are not reasons for belief, but (to use a distinction from Pamela Hieronymi) reasons to manage our beliefs in a particular way. Pragmatists are not convinced. They accept that some (or perhaps all) reasons for belief are practical. The debate, it is widely thought, is at an impasse. But this debate fails to address what is puzzling and interesting about the cases. By focusing on reasons for belief, the debate completely overlooks the role of action in relation to belief. We should be talking about the reasons for actions that shape our beliefs, which I will call belief management. I argue for three related theses: (1) the interesting cases that motivate the debate are about belief management; (2) Evidentialism is irrelevant to belief management; (3) agents have practical reasons to manage their beliefs with the aim of forming true beliefs. These reasons are categorical in nature and result in the tension of conflict cases.

Keywords

Ethics of belief Evidentialism Pragmatism Practical reasons for belief Philosophy of action 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper received generous feedback at many venues, and I am grateful to more people than I can name. I am especially thankful to Baron Reed, Selim Berker, James Fritz, Jessica Wright, Luis Rosa, Andy Mueller, Andrea Robitzsch, Lisa Benossi, Jakob Ohlhorst, Cory Davia, and an anonymous referee for formative conversations that shaped this paper.

References

  1. Alston, W. (1989). Epistemic justification. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alvarez, M. (2010). Kinds of reasons: An essay in the philosophy of action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anscombe, G. E. M. (1957). Intention. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Aristotle, C., & Irwin, T. (1999). Nicomachean ethic. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, J. (1990). Why is belief involuntary? Analysis,50(2), 27–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berker, S. (2019). Combinatorial argument against practical reasons for belief. Analytic Philosophy,59, 427–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bok, H. (1997). Freedom and responsibility. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, J. (2010). Knowledge and assertion. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,81(3), 549–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clifford, W. K. (1877 [1999]). The ethics of belief. In T. Madigan (Ed.), The ethics of belief and other essays (pp. 70–96). Amherst, MA: Prometheus.Google Scholar
  10. Colvin, R., & Block, J. (1994). Do positive illusions foster mental health? An examination of the Taylor and Brown formulation. Psychological Bulletin,116, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davidson, D. (1963). Actions, reasons, and causes. Journal of Philosophy,60(23), 685–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fantl, J., & McGrath, M. (2009). Knowledge in an uncertain world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feldman, R. (2000). The ethics of belief. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,60(3), 667–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hájek, A. (2018). Pascal’s Wager, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition), E. N. Zalta (Ed.). Retrieved November 14, 2019 from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/pascal-wager.
  16. Hawthorne, J., & Stanley, J. (2008). Knowledge and action. The Journal of Philosophy,105, 571–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hazlett, A. (2013). A luxury of the understanding: On the value of true belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hieronymi, P. (2005). The wrong kind of reason. Journal of Philosophy,102(9), 437–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hieronymi, P. (2006). Controlling attitudes. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly,87, 45–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hieronymi, P. (2008). Responsibility for believing. Synthese,161(3), 357–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hieronymi, P. (2009a). Two kinds of agency. In L. O’Brien & M. Soteriou (Eds.), Mental action (pp. 138–162). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hieronymi, P. (2009b). Believing at will. Canadian Journal of Philosophy,39, 149–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hieronymi, P. (2011). Reasons for action. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society,111(January), 407–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. James, W. (1897). The sentiment of rationality. In W. James (Ed.), Will to believe and other essays in popular philosophy. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lackey, J. (2010). Acting on knowledge. Philosophical Perspectives,24(1), 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leary, S. (2017). In defense of practical reasons for belief. Australasian Journal of Philosophy,95(3), 878–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Locke, D. (2015). Practical certainty. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,90, 72–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mueller, A. (2017) How does epistemic rationality constrain practical rationality? Analytic Philosophy, 58(2), 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Parfit, D. (2011). On what matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rinard, S. (2015). Against the new evidentialists. Philosophical Issues,25(1), 208–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rinard, S. (2017). No exception for belief. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,93(3), 121–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Robertson, S. (2011). Epistemic constraints on practical normativity. Synthese,181, 81–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scanlon, T. M. (2014). Being realistic about reasons. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schroeder, M. (2010). Slaves of the passions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Shah, N. (2006). A new argument for evidentialism. Philosophical Quarterly,56(225), 481–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shah, N. (2011). Can reasons for belief be debunked? In A. Reisner & A. Steglich-Petersen (Eds.), reasons for belief. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Smithies, D. (2012). The normative role of knowledge. Nous,46(2), 265–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stanley, J. (2005). Knowledge and practical interests. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Way, J., & Whiting, D. (2016). If you Justifiably Believe you ought to Φ, then you ought to Φ. Philosophical Studies,173(7), 1873–1895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wedgwood, R. (2002). The aim of belief. Nous,36(s16), 267–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wedgwood, R. (2013). Doxastic correctness. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes,87(January), 217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. White, R. (2010). You just believe that because. Philosophical Perspectives,24(1), 572–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Whiting, D. (2014). Reasons for belief, reasons for action, the aim of belief, and the aim of action. In C. Littlejohn & J. Turri (Eds.), Epistemic norms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Williams, B. (1973). Deciding to believe. In B. Williams (Ed.), Problems of the self (pp. 136–151). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Young, M. C. (2014). Do positive illusions contribute to human well-being? Philosophical Psychology,27(4), 536–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options