Methodological conservatism and the epistemic condition

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterpeer-review

Abstract

The claim that agents are morally responsible for actions the wrongness of which they fail to be aware of only if they are responsible for their occurrent ignorance strikes many philosophers as unacceptable, because it is too revisionary: it entails that many of the everyday judgments that we are disposed to make are false. Agents satisfy these conditions too infrequently for our everyday judgments to be vindicated. These philosophers maintain that it is a theoretical virtue to preserve as many of our everyday judgments as possible. This chapter attempts to show that we ought not to strive to preserve as many of our everyday judgments about responsibility as we might think. It offers an error theory for why we are often disposed to judge that individuals are responsible when we are implicitly committed to thinking that they are not.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationResponsibility
Subtitle of host publicationthe epistemic condition
EditorsPhilip Robichaud, Jan Willem Wieland
Place of PublicationOxford, UK
PublisherOxford University Press
Pages252-265
Number of pages14
ISBN (Electronic)9780191824715
ISBN (Print)9780198779667
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017

Keywords

  • moral responsibility
  • epistemic condition
  • psychology
  • epistemic conservatism
  • revisionism

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Methodological conservatism and the epistemic condition'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this