David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Quarterly 61 (244):537-557 (2011)
I examine ways in which belief can and cannot be coerced. Belief simply cannot be coerced in a way analogous to central cases of coerced action, for it cannot be coerced by threats which serve as genuine reasons for belief. But there are two other ways in which the concept of coercion can apply to belief. Belief can be indirectly coerced by threats which serve as reasons for acting in ways designed to bring about a belief, and it can be coercively compelled by threats which non-rationally cause belief. The former is often a necessary and epistemically acceptable feature of compulsory education, but the latter produces beliefs which even if true are epistemically problematic
|Keywords||coercion belief reasons|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Benjamin McMyler (2015). Requesting Belief. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 96 (3).
Tim Heysse (forthcoming). Power, Norms and Theory. A Meta-Political Inquiry. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy:1-23.
Benjamin McMyler (2015). Obedience and Believing a Person. Philosophical Investigations 38 (4).
Jeremy Wanderer (2013). Testimony and the Interpersonal. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 21 (1):92 - 110.
Similar books and articles
Elinor Mason (2012). Coercion and Integrity. In Mark Timmons (ed.), Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics 2. Oxford
Japa Pallikkathayil (2011). The Possibility of Choice: Three Accounts of the Problem with Coercion. Philosophers' Imprint 11 (16).
Anthony Robert Booth (2014). Two Reasons Why Epistemic Reasons Are Not Object‐Given Reasons. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 89 (1):1-14.
Andrew Reisner (2007). Evidentialism and the Numbers Game. Theoria 73 (4):304-316.
Hannah Ginsborg (2006). Reasons for Belief. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 72 (2):286 - 318.
Rik Peels & Anthony Robert Booth (2014). Why Responsible Belief Is Permissible Belief. Analytic Philosophy 54 (4):75-88.
Joan McGregor (1988). PhilipS on Coerced Agreements. Law and Philosophy 7 (2):225 - 236.
Santiago Echeverri (2013). Is Perception a Source of Reasons? Theoria 79 (1):22-56.
Anthony Robert Booth & Rik Peels (2010). Why Responsible Belief is Blameless Belief. Journal of Philosophy 107 (5):257-265.
Joseph Millum (2014). Consent Under Pressure: The Puzzle of Third Party Coercion. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 17 (1):113-127.
Roberto Gargarella (2011). Penal Coercion in Contexts of Social Injustice. Criminal Law and Philosophy 5 (1):21-38.
Michael Philips (1984). Are Coerced Agreements Involuntary? Law and Philosophy 3 (1):133 - 145.
Christopher Tollefsen (2006). Reasons for Action and Reasons for Belief. Social Epistemology 20 (1):55 – 65.
Sergi Rosell (2009). A New Rejection of Doxastic Voluntarism. Teorema: International Journal of Philosophy (3):97-112.
Added to index2011-02-03
Total downloads40 ( #83,639 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #369,877 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?