Abstract
This is a discussion of Mark Schroeder’s book Reasons First. In this book, Schroeder defends the following thesis: for every believer and every time, it is the reasons that the believer has at that time that determine what it is rational for the believer to believe at that time. It is argued here that this thesis is false, since it conflicts with the plausible principle of “normative invariance”: what a believer ought to believe at a time cannot depend on what the believer actually believes at that time. Schroeder’s thesis conflicts with this principle because Schroeder accepts that what reasons a believer has at a time always depends, at least in part, on the beliefs that the believer has at the time. The conclusion to be drawn is that, if this principle of normative invariance is correct, the notions of “reasons” and “evidence” should be banished from fundamental epistemology.
Data Availability
The data in this contribution may be made publicly available in every relevant medium.
Notes
For this conception of rationality as an agential normative notion, see Wedgwood (2017, Chap. 6)].
References
Bykvist, K. (2007). Violations of normative invariance: Some thoughts on shifty oughts. Theoria, 73(2), 98–120.
Carlson, E. (1995). Consequentialism reconsidered. Kluwer.
Egan, A., & Elga, A. (2005). I can’t believe I’m stupid. Philosophical perspectives, 19(1), 77–93.
Feldman, R. (1988). “Having evidence”, in Earl Conee and Richard Feldman, Evidentialism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004): 219–241.
Prichard, H. A. (2002). In J. MacAdam (Ed.), Moral writings. Oxford University Press.
Schroeder, M. (2021). Reasons first. Oxford University Press.
Wedgwood, R. (2017). The value of rationality. Oxford University Press.
Wedgwood, R. (2023). Rationality and belief. Oxford University Press.
Williamson, T. (2007). On being justified in One’s Head. In M. Timmons, J. Greco, & A. Mele (Eds.), Rationality and the good (pp. 106–122). Oxford University Press.
Funding
No special funding needs to be reported.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
This is a single-authored submission.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
There are no conflicts of interest in this submission.
Ethics approval
No ethics approval is required.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wedgwood, R. Can our reasons determine what it is rational for us to believe?. Philos Stud 181, 627–636 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-023-02034-1
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-023-02034-1