Some Of Our Books

Categories

« CFP on Eudaimonia and Virtue | Main | CFP: SLACRR 2 »

October 10, 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

One problem might be that the debates aren't genuinely ethical debates since we're told that we're to focus on a distinctively epistemic norm in thinking about warranted assertion. Another is that the papers are in the wrong place. Another is that the data that we're supposed to think about in testing competing theories might be data that ethicists don't think much about (e.g., Moore's Paradox, lottery cases).

It's unfortunate that the "ethics" filters in via the epistemologists. It seems to me that there are two distinct issues running through the literature on warranted assertion. First, there's the "point" issue. Do assertions and beliefs aspire to be true or should we think of the aim of these things in terms of knowledge? Second, there's the more distinctively normative issue. Even once we settle the T vs. K dispute, there's the normative question as to whether we should hold to something like a strict liability standard or operate instead with something like a due care standard. I don't think anyone really denies that assertions and beliefs are supposed to be true, aim at the truth, etc... (not exclusive of K, mind you), but you'll find plenty of folks who think that an assertion/belief can be permissible even if it fails to live up to these standards. Indeed, in some papers you get the sense that the authors think that it is obvious that there can be false warranted assertions even if the point/aim of assertion involves expressing a truth.

I wish more ethicists would get involved on that second issue and say something helpful about whether we should work with a strict liability standard or something more "forgiving". (I'm a big fan of a strict liability standard that takes there to be no fault requirement on warrant/permissibility. I think this is a live option in ethics, but not one taken terribly seriously in epistemology.)

Quick follow up. Judith Thomson discusses assertion in her new book, Normativity. As is typically the case with her writing, it is hilarious and filled with valuable insights.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ethics at PEA Soup

PPE at PEA Soup

Like PEA Soup

Search PEA Soup


Disclaimer

  • Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed in any given post reflect the opinion of only that individual who posted the particular entry or comment.