pp 1–14 | Cite as

Discussion Note: Selim Berker’s Combinatorial Argument against Practical Reasons for Belief

  • Adam ShmidtEmail author


In a recent paper, Selim Berker (Analytic Philosophy, 59, 427-470, 2018) develops an abductive argument against practical reasons for belief that exploits an alleged difference between epistemic and practical reasons. According to Berker, epistemic reasons for belief balance to suspension. If I have equally strong epistemic reasons to believe and disbelieve some proposition, I lack sufficient reason either to believe or disbelieve it. Rather, I have decisive reason to suspend judgment. In contrast, practical reasons balance to permission. If I have equally strong practical reasons to φ or ψ (and there are no other reasons on the scene), I have sufficient reason to do either. Given this difference, Berker argues that defenders of practical reasons for belief cannot offer a plausible explanation of how practical and epistemic reasons interact in order to yield all-things-considered normative verdicts. In this essay, I defend a non-interactionist “pure” form of pragmatism against Berker’s objection. I outline a pure pragmatist theory, recapitulate why Berker thinks it also falls prey to his objection, and explain why the objection fails to undermine pure pragmatism. Finally, I consider an additional reason Berker’s argument might seem persuasive and show that it depends on conflating Berker’s objection and a separate challenge to pure pragmatism. Once these distinct challenges are disambiguated, it is easier to see why Berker’s objection is not a significant concern for pure pragmatists.


Ethics of belief Pragmatism Evidentialism Weighing Reasons for belief Epistemic normativity Selim Berker 



Special thanks to Daniel Star and two anonymous referees at Philosophia for written comments that greatly improved the paper. I would also like to thank David DiDomenico, Becca Fink, Walter Hopp, Berislav Marušić, Miriam McCormick, Susanna Rinard, Sebastian Schmidt, Jack Woods, and especiallySelim Berker for helpful conversations.


  1. Berker, S. (2018). A combinatorial argument against practical reasons for belief. Analytic Philosophy. 59: 427–470.Google Scholar
  2. Côté-Bouchard, C. (2016). Can the aim of belief ground epistemic normativity? Philosophical Studies 173(12): 3181–3198.Google Scholar
  3. Crawford, L. (2019). Believing the best: On doxastic partiality in friendship. Synthese 196(4): 1575–1593.Google Scholar
  4. Dancy, J. (2004). Ethics without principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Drake, J. (2017). Doxastic permissiveness and the promise of truth. Synthese, 194(12), 4897–4912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Feldman, R. (2000). The ethics of belief. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 60(3), 667–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gibbard, A. (1990). Wise choices, apt feelings: a theory of normative judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Howard, C. (2016). Transparency and the ethics of belief. Philosophical Studies, 173(5), 1191–1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kelly, T. (2002). The rationality of belief and some other propositional attitudes. Philosophical Studies 110(2): 163–196.Google Scholar
  10. Kolodny, N. (2005). Why be rational? Mind, 114, 509–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Leary, S. (2017). In defense of practical reasons for belief. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 95(3), 529–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maguire, B. and Woods, J. (in press). “The Game of Belief.” Philosophical Review. Google Scholar
  13. McCormick, M. (2015). Believing against the evidence: Agency and the ethics of belief. Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Papineau, D. (2013). There are no norms of belief. In Timothy Chan (ed.), The Aim of Belief. Oxford University Press: 64–79, There Are No Norms of Belief.Google Scholar
  15. Parfit, D. (2011). On what matters (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Persson, I. (2007). Primary and secondary reasons. Hommage à Wlodek: Philosophical Papers Dedicated to Wlodek Rabinowicz. eds. Toni Rønnow-Rasmussen, Bjorn Petersson, Jonas Joseffson, and Dan Egonsson. Accessed 2 June 2019.
  17. Raleigh, T. (2017). Another Argument Against Uniqueness. The Philosophical Quarterly, 67(267), 327–346.Google Scholar
  18. Raz, J. (2011). From normativity to responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Reisner, A. (2007). Evidentialism and the numbers game. Theoria, 73(4), 304–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reisner, A. (2008). Weighing pragmatic and evidential reasons for belief. Philosophical Studies, 138(1), 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Reisner, A. (2009). The possibility of pragmatic reasons for belief and the Wrong Kind of Reasons Problem. Philosophical Studies 145(2): 257–272.Google Scholar
  22. Reisner, A. (2013). Leaps of knowledge. In Timothy Chan (ed.), The aim of belief. Oxford University Press: 167–183.Google Scholar
  23. Reisner, A. (2018). Pragmatic reasons for belief. In Daniel star (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Reasons and Normativity. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Rinard, S. (2015). Against the new Evidentialists. Philosophical Issues, 25(1), 208–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rinard, S. (2017). No exception for belief. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 94(1), 121–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rinard, S. (2018). Believing for practical reasons. Noûs.
  27. Schroeder, M. (2010). Value and the right kind of reason in Oxford studies in Metaethics 5: 25–55.Google Scholar
  28. Schroeder, M. (2007). Slaves of the passions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Schroeder, M. (2011). Holism, weight, and undercutting. Noûs, 45(2), 328–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shah, N. (2006). A new argument for Evidentialism. The Philosophical Quarterly, 56(225), 481–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stich, S. (1990). The fragmentation of reason: Preface to a pragmatic theory of cognitive evaluation. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyBoston UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations