Epistemic supererogation and its implications

Synthese 191 (15):3621-3637 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Supererogatory acts, those which are praiseworthy but not obligatory, have become a significant topic in contemporary moral philosophy, primarily because morally supererogatory acts have proven difficult to reconcile with other important aspects of normative ethics. However, despite the similarities between ethics and epistemology, epistemic supererogation has received very little attention. In this paper, I aim to further the discussion of supererogation by arguing for the existence of epistemically supererogatory acts and considering the potential implications of their existence. First, I offer a brief account of moral supererogation and how morally supererogatory acts generate a strong intuition that a similar phenomenon should exist in epistemology. Afterward, I argue for the existence of epistemically supererogatory acts by examining five cases where an epistemic activity appears to be epistemically supererogatory. Epistemic supererogation appears to provide the best explanation for our considered judgments about the individuals’ behavior in these different cases. Finally, I consider how epistemic supererogation might impact the contemporary study of epistemology, particularly with regard to how we appraise certain epistemic duties.

Similar books and articles

Self-regarding supererogatory actions.Jason Kawall - 2003 - Journal of Social Philosophy 34 (3):487–498.
Supererogation in clinical research.Deborah R. Barnbaum - 2008 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 11 (3):343-349.
Virtue theory, ideal observers, and the supererogatory.Jason Kawall - 2008 - Philosophical Studies 146 (2):179-96.
Supererogation for utilitarianism.Jean-Paul Vessel - 2010 - American Philosophical Quarterly 47 (4):299 - 319.
Why There are No Epistemic Duties.Chase B. Wrenn - 2007 - Dialogue: The Canadian Philosophical Review 46 (1):115-136.
Is it Bad to Omit an Act of Supererogation?Gregory Mellema - 1996 - Journal of Philosophical Research 21:405-416.
Promising and supererogation.Jason Kawall - 2005 - Philosophia 32 (1-4):389-398.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-05-28

Downloads
656 (#26,064)

6 months
113 (#36,423)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Trevor Hedberg
University of Arizona

Citations of this work

Shared Epistemic Responsibility.Boyd Millar - 2021 - Episteme 18 (4):493-506.
Rational supererogation and epistemic permissivism.Robert Weston Siscoe - 2021 - Philosophical Studies 179 (2):571-591.
Supererogation Across Normative Domains.Brian McElwee - 2017 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 95 (3):505-516.
A Theory of Epistemic Supererogation.Han Li - 2018 - Erkenntnis 83 (2):349-367.

View all 12 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Saints and heroes.J. O. Urmson - 1958 - In Abraham Irving Melden (ed.), Essays in moral philosophy. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
The Ethics of Belief.W. K. Clifford - 1999 - In William Kingdon Clifford (ed.), The ethics of belief and other essays. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. pp. 70-97.
Disagreement, Dogmatism, and Belief Polarization.Thomas Kelly - 2008 - Journal of Philosophy 105 (10):611-633.

View all 35 references / Add more references