Theoria 76 (2):112-118 (2010)
|Abstract||From the dictum "ought implies can", it has been argued that no account of belief's normativity can avoid the unpalatable result that, for unbelievable propositions such as "It is raining and nobody believes that it is raining", one ought not to believe them even if true. In this article, I argue that this move only succeeds on a faulty assumption about the conjunction of doxastic "oughts.".|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Daniel Whiting (2008). Oughts and Thoughts: Rule-Following and the Normativity of Content – Anandi Hattiangadi. Philosophical Quarterly 58 (233):743-745.
Hector-Neri Castaneda (1966). Imperatives, Oughts, and Moral Oughts. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 44 (3):277 – 300.
Andrei A. Buckareff (2006). Doxastic Decisions and Controlling Belief. Acta Analytica 21 (1):102-114.
Anthony Robert Booth (2012). All Things Considered Duties to Believe. Synthese 187 (2):509-517.
Danny Frederick (2013). Doxastic Voluntarism: A Sceptical Defence. International Journal for the Study of Skepticism 3 (1):24-44.
Brian Huss (2009). Three Challenges (and Three Replies) to the Ethics of Belief. Synthese 168 (2):249 - 271.
Anandi Hattiangadi (2007). Oughts and Thoughts: Rule-Following and the Normativity of Content. Oxford University Press.
Brian Ribeiro (2002). Epistemological Skepticism(s) and Rational Self-Control. The Monist 85 (3):468-477.
Matthew Chrisman (2008). Ought to Believe. Journal of Philosophy 105 (7):346-370.
Added to index2010-04-02
Total downloads40 ( #33,719 of 722,856 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #36,756 of 722,856 )
How can I increase my downloads?