Abstract
AbstractAccording to moral encroachment facts about epistemic justification can vary with moral factors that are unrelated to the truth of the belief. Most of the literature on this topic has focused on how beliefs can wrong, and whether the data that moral encroachers offer in support of their view can be explained within a purist framework. A largely neglected question has been what kind of consequences moral encroachment would have for epistemic justification if the thesis were true. Here I remedy this shortcoming by examining what kind of structural implications moral encroachment has for epistemic justification.
Funder
Academy of Finland
University of Helsinki including Helsinki University Central Hospital
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference53 articles.
1. Anderson, C., & Hawthorne, J. (2019). Knowledge practical adequacy. Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 6(6), 234.
2. Basu, R. (2018). Can beliefs wrong? Philosophical Topics, 46(1), 1–17.
3. Basu, R. (2019a). Radical moral encroachment: The moral stakes of racist beliefs. Philosophical Issues, 29(1), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/phis.12137
4. Basu, R. (2019b). The wrongs of racist beliefs. Philosophical Studies, 176(9), 2497–2515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-018-1137-0
5. Basu, R. (2021). A tale of two doctrines: moral encroachment and doxastic wronging. In J. Lackey (Ed.), Applied epistemology: Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献