Strong internalism, doxastic involuntarism, and the costs of compatibilism

Synthese:1-21 (forthcoming)

Timothy Perrine
Wuhan University
Epistemic deontology maintains that our beliefs and degrees of belief are open to deontic evaluations—evaluations of what we ought to believe or may not believe. Some philosophers endorse strong internalist versions of epistemic deontology on which agents can always access what determines the deontic status of their beliefs and degrees of belief. This paper articulates a new challenge for strong internalist versions of epistemic deontology. Any version of epistemic deontology must face William Alston’s argument. Alston combined a broadly voluntarist conception of responsibility, on which ought implies can, with doxastic involuntarism, the position that our beliefs are not under our control. Together, those views imply that epistemic deontology is false. A promising response to Alston’s argument is to embrace a compatibilist account of control—specifically a reason-responsive version of compatibilism—and use it to criticism his doxastic involuntarism. I argue that while reason-responsive compatibilism about control does undermine Alston’s argument, it comes at a cost. Specifically, it is inconsistent with strong internalist versions of epistemic deontology. The surprising upshot is that so long as we retain a voluntarist conception of responsibility, we have reason for rejecting strong internalist versions of epistemic deontology.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11229-018-1879-4
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

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

On What Matters: Two-Volume Set.Derek Parfit - 2011 - Oxford University Press.
What We Owe to Each Other.Thomas Scanlon - 1998 - Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Knowledge in a Social World.Alvin I. Goldman - 1999 - Oxford University Press.

View all 82 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Feldman on the Epistemic Value of Truth.Timothy Perrine - 2019 - Acta Analytica 34 (4):515-529.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Ought to Believe.Matthew Chrisman - 2008 - Journal of Philosophy 105 (7):346-370.
Against Doxastic Compatibilism.Rik Peels - 2014 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 89 (1):679-702.
Deontology and Doxastic Control.Nicholas Tebben - 2014 - Synthese 191 (12):2835-2847.
Freedom and Reason.Margaret Schmitt - 2015 - Synthese 192 (1):25-41.
Epistemic Deontology and Voluntariness.Conor McHugh - 2012 - Erkenntnis 77 (1):65-94.
Belief Control and Intentionality.Matthias Steup - 2012 - Synthese 188 (2):145-163.
Why Justification Matters.Declan Smithies - 2015 - In David Henderson & John Greco (eds.), Epistemic Evaluation: Point and Purpose in Epistemology. Oxford University Press. pp. 224-244.
Deontology and Defeat.Michael Bergmann - 2000 - Philosophical and Phenomenological Research 60 (1):87-102.


Added to PP index

Total views
171 ( #49,299 of 2,311,311 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
45 ( #16,429 of 2,311,311 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes

Sign in to use this feature