, 171:443 | Cite as

Entitlement, value and rationality

  • Nikolaj Jang PedersenEmail author


In this paper I discuss two fundamental challenges concerning Crispin Wright’s notion of entitlement of cognitive project: first, whether entitlement is an epistemic kind of warrant since, seemingly, it is not underwritten by epistemic reasons, and, second, whether, in the absence of such reasons, the kind of rationality associated with entitlement is epistemic in nature. The paper investigates three possible lines of response to these challenges. According to the first line of response, entitlement of cognitive project is underwritten by epistemic reasons—and thus supports epistemic rationality—because, when P is an entitlement, trust in P is a dominant strategy with respect to promotion of epistemic value. The second line of response replaces dominance with maximization of expected utility. I argue that both of these proposals are flawed and develop an alternative line of response.


Epistemic entitlement Epistemic reasons Epistemic value  Epistemic rationality Scepticism Crispin Wright 


  1. Alston, W. (1989). Concepts of epistemic justification. In Epistemic justification. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Burge T. (1993). Content preservation. Philosophical Review 102(4): 457–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burge T. (2003). Perceptual entitlement. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 67, 503–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. David M. (2001). Truth as the epistemic goal. In: Steup M. (ed). Knowledge, truth, and duty. New York, Oxford University Press, pp. 151–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. David M. (2005). Truth as the primary epistemic goal: A working hypothesis. In: Steup M., Sosa E. (eds). Contemporary debates in epistemology. Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 296–312Google Scholar
  6. Davies, M. (2004). Epistemic entitlement, warrant transmission, and easy knowledge. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary (Vol. LXXVIII, pp. 213–244).Google Scholar
  7. Foley R. (1987). The theory of epistemic rationality. Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Goldman A. (2001). The unity of the epistemic virtues. In: Fairweather A., Zagzebski L. (eds). Virtue epistemology. New York, Oxford University Press, pp. 30–49Google Scholar
  9. James, W. (1898). The will to believe. In The will to believe, and other essays in popular philosophy (pp. 1–31). New York: Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
  10. Jenkins C. (2007). Entitlement and rationality. Synthese 157(1): 25–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nozick R. (1981). Philosophical explanations. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Peacocke C. (2003). The realm of reason. Oxford, Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pritchard D. (2005). Wittgenstein’s On certainty and contemporary anti-scepticism. In: Moyal-Sharrock D., Brenner W.H. (eds). Investigating on certainty: Essays on Wittgenstein’s last work. London, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 189–224Google Scholar
  14. Putnam H. (1981). Reason, truth and history. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  15. Riggs W. (2003). Balancing our epistemic goals. Noûs 37(2): 342–352Google Scholar
  16. Wittgenstein L. (1969). On certainty. Oxford, Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  17. Wright, C. (2004). Warrant for nothing (and foundations for free)? In Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary (Vol. LXXVIII, pp. 167–212).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations