Problems of Wright's entitlement theory

In Peter Graham & Nikolaj Pedersen (eds.), Epistemic Entitlement. Oxford University Press (forthcoming)
I am concerned with Crispin Wright (2004, 2008, 2012 and 2014)’s entitlement theory, according to which (1) we have non-evidential justification for accepting propositions of a general type, which Wright calls cornerstones, and (2) this non-evidential justification for cornerstones can secure evidential justification for believing many other propositions––those we take to be true on the grounds of ordinary evidence. I initially focus on Wright’s strategic entitlement, which is one of the types of entitlement that Wright has described in more detail. Wright (2014) argues that strategic entitlement is a form of epistemic justification rather than pragmatic, as some critics have contended. I respond that whether or not strategic entitlement is epistemic, it is very dubious that there are cornerstones we are strategically entitled to accept. Thus, it is very implausible that that (1) could be defended by appealing to strategic entitlement. After this, I argue that even if (1) were true, (2) would be false because non-evidential justification for accepting cornerstones cannot secure evidential justification for believing ordinary propositions. This criticism is more ambitious than the previous one because it aims to strike all forms of epistemic entitlement introduced by Wright at once. My argument relies on elementary probabilistic regimentations of the so-called leaching problem.
Keywords epistemic entitlement  Crispin Wright  non-evidential justification  scepticism
Categories (categorize this paper)
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Transmission of Justification and Warrant.Luca Moretti & Tommaso Piazza - 2013 - The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
The Concept of Entitlement and its Epistemic Relevance.Hamid Vahid - 2011 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (3):380-399.
On Epistemic Alchemy.Aidan McGlynn - 2014 - In Dylan Dodd Elia Zardini (ed.), Scepticism and Perceptual Justification. Oxford University Press. pp. 173-189.
Perceptual Justification and Warrant by Default.Chris Tucker - 2009 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87: 445-63 87 (3):445-63.
On Epistemic Entitlement.Crispin Wright & Martin Davies - 2004 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 78:167-245.
What is Entitlement?Albert Casullo - 2007 - Acta Analytica 22 (4):267 - 279.
Scepticism, Defeasible Evidence and Entitlement.Daniele Sgaravatti - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 168 (2):439-455.
Epistemic Entitlement.Jon Altschul - 2011 - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Entitlement and Evidence.Martin Smith - 2013 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 91 (4):735-753.
Burge on Perceptual Entitlement.Hamid Vahid - 2012 - Metaphilosophy 43 (3):187-203.
What Entitlement Is.Brad Majors - 2015 - Acta Analytica 30 (4):363-387.
Mere Faith and Entitlement.Yuval Avnur - 2012 - Synthese 189 (2):297-315.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

233 ( #15,336 of 2,158,385 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

30 ( #11,570 of 2,158,385 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums