, Volume 84, Issue 6, pp 1183–1188 | Cite as

On the Pareto Condition on Permissible Belief

  • Jakob KoscholkeEmail author
Critical Discussion


Thomas Kroedel has recently proposed an interesting Pareto-style condition on permissible belief. Despite the condition’s initial plausibility, this paper aims at providing a counterexample to it. The example is based on the view that a proper condition on permissible belief should not give permission to believe a proposition that undermines one’s belief system or whose epistemic standing decreases in the light of one’s de facto beliefs.



I would like to thank (in alphabetical order) Roman Heil, Thomas Kroedel, Patricia Rich and Moritz Schulz for helpful comments. Special thanks to Thomas Kroedel for taking the time to discuss some of my questions in detail and for encouraging me to submit this short paper. I am also indebted to three anonymous referees whose remarks helped me to improve this paper. This work was funded by Grant SCHU 3080/3-1 to Moritz Schulz from the DFG as part of the Emmy-Noether-Group Knowledge and Decision.


  1. Eder, A.-M. A. (2015). No match point for the permissibility account. Erkenntnis, 80(3), 657–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Huber, F. (2014). What is the permissibility solution a solution of? A question for Kroedel. Logos and Episteme, 5(3), 333–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Kroedel, T. (2012). The lottery paradox, epistemic justification and permissibility. Analysis, 72(1), 57–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kroedel, T. (2013a). The permissibility solution to the lottery paradox—Reply to Littlejohn. Logos and Episteme, 4(1), 103–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kroedel, T. (2013b). Why epistemic permissions don’t agglomerate—Another reply to Littlejohn. Logos and Episteme, 4(4), 451–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kroedel, T. (2017). The lottery, the preface, and conditions on permissible belief. Erkenntnis. Scholar
  7. Kyburg, H. E. (1961). Probability and the logic of rational belief. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Littlejohn, C. (2012). Lotteries, probabilities, and permissions. Logos and Episteme, 3(3), 509–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Littlejohn, C. (2013). Don’t know, don’t believe: Reply to Kroedel. Logos and Episteme, 4(2), 231–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Makinson, D. C. (1965). The paradox of the preface. Analysis, 25(6), 205–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pollock, J. L. (1986). The paradox of the preface. Philosophy of Science, 53(2), 246–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sen, A. (1970). The impossibility of a Paretian liberal. Journal of Political Economy, 78(1), 152–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations