Permissiveness in morality and epistemology

Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy (forthcoming)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Morality is intrapersonally permissive: cases abound in which an agent has more than one morally permitted option. In contrast, there is a dearth of cases in which an agent has more than one epistemically permitted response to her evidence. Given the structural parallels between morality and epistemology, why do sources of moral permissiveness fail to have parallel permissive effects in the epistemic domain? This asymmetry between morality and epistemology cries out for explanation. The paper's task is to offer an answer to that call. We explain the asymmetry by tracing moral permissiveness to two factors to which rationality is morally but not epistemically sensitive.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

How Supererogation Can Save Intrapersonal Permissivism.Han Li - 2019 - American Philosophical Quarterly 56 (2):171-186.
Uniqueness and Permissiveness in Epistemology.Luis Rosa - 2018 - Oxford Bibliographies — Philosophy.
A Theory of Epistemic Supererogation.Han Li - 2018 - Erkenntnis 83 (2):349-367.
Is Epistemic Permissivism Intuitive?Nathan Ballantyne - 2018 - American Philosophical Quarterly 55 (4):365-378.
Doxastic permissiveness and the promise of truth.J. Drake - 2017 - Synthese 194 (12):4897-4912.
On Why There is a Problem of Supererogation.Nora Grigore - 2019 - Philosophia 47 (4):1141-1163.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-12-16

Downloads
69 (#175,987)

6 months
23 (#50,511)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Han Li
Rutgers University - Camden
Bradford Saad
Utrecht University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references