Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 106 (1):61–84 (2006)
|Abstract||This paper outlines a new approach to the epistemology of normative beliefs, based on a version of the claim that “the intentional is normative”. This approach incorporates an account of where our “normative intuitions” come from, and of why it is essential to these intuitions that they have a certain weak connection to the truth. This account allows that these intuitions may be fallible, but it also seeks to explain why it is rational for us to rely on these intuitions in forming normative beliefs—although it is also rational for us to try to correct for these intuitions’ fallibility by revising our normative beliefs in such a way as to approach what Rawls called “reflective equilibrium”.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Ralph Wedgwood (forthcoming). The Right Thing to Believe. In Timothy Chan (ed.), The Aim of Belief. Oxford University Press.
Christian Nimtz (forthcoming). Saving the Doxastic Account of Intuitions. Philosophical Psychology 23 (3):357-375.
Joshua Gert (2003). Requiring and Justifying: Two Dimensions of Normative Strength. Erkenntnis 59 (1):5 - 36.
Raimo Tuomela (1992). Group Beliefs. Synthese 91 (3):285-318.
Selim Berker (2009). The Normative Insignificance of Neuroscience. Philosophy and Public Affairs 37 (4):293-329.
Peter Singer (2005). Ethics and Intuitions. Journal of Ethics 9 (3-4):331 - 352.
Jonathan Weinberg (2006). What's Epistemology For? The Case for Neopragmatism in Normative Metaepistemology. In S. Hetherington (ed.), Epistemological Futures. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads77 ( #10,343 of 548,984 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #19,181 of 548,984 )
How can I increase my downloads?