Advertisement

Doxastic Responsibility and Direct Doxastic Control

  • Andrea Robitzsch
Chapter
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 411)

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to argue that doxastic responsibility, i.e., responsibility for holding a certain doxastic attitude, is not based on direct doxastic control. There are two different kinds of direct doxastic control to be found in the literature, intentional doxastic control and evaluative doxastic control. Although many epistemologists agree that we do not have intentional doxastic control over our doxastic attitudes, it has been argued that we have evaluative doxastic control over the majority of our doxastic attitudes. This has led to the assumption that doxastic responsibility is based on evaluative doxastic control. In the first part of this chapter I will introduce the notion of doxastic responsibility and the framework of doxastic guidance control as well as the approaches to direct and indirect doxastic control. I will then argue that doxastic responsibility is not based on direct doxastic control by showing that doxastic responsibility is neither based on intentional nor on evaluative doxastic control.

References

  1. Alston, W. P. (1988b). The deontological conception of epistemic justification. Philosophical Perspectives, 2, 257–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Breyer, D., & J. Greco (2008). Cognitive integration and the ownership of belief: Response to Bernecker. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 76(1), 173–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Breyer, D. S. (2013). Knowledge, credit, and cognitive agency. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 94(4), 503–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brueckner, A. (2010). Skepticism and closure. In M. Steup, J. Dancy, & E. Sosa (Eds.), A companion to epistemology (2nd ed., pp. 3–12). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  5. Buckareff, A. A. (2006). Doxastic decisions and controlling belief. Acta Analytica, 21(1), 102–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burge, T. (2003). Perceptual entitlement. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 67(3), 503–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Feldman, R. (2000). The ethics of belief. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 60(3), 667–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Feldman, R., & Conee, E. (1985). Evidentialism. Philosophical Studies, 48(1), 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fischer, J. M. (2012). Deep control: Essays on free will and value. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fischer, J. M., & Ravizza, M. (1998). Responsibility and control: A theory of moral responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldman, A. I. (1976). Discrimination and perceptual knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy, 73, 771–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldman, A. I. (1979). What is justified belief? In G. S. Pappas (Ed.), Justification and knowledge: New studies in epistemology (pp. 1–23). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Goldman, A. I. (1986). Epistemology and cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Goldman, A. I. (1993). Epistemic folkways and scientific epistemology. Philosophical Issues, 3, 271–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greco, J. (2009). Knowledge and success from ability. Philosophical Studies, 142(1), 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haack, S. (1993). Evidence and inquiry. Towards as reconstruction in epistemology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Hieronymi, P. (2006). Controlling attitudes. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 87(1), 45–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kallestrup, J., & Pritchard, D. (2014). Virtue epistemology and epistemic twin earth. European Journal of Philosophy, 22(3), 335–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kornblith, H. (2015). The role of reasons in epistemology. Episteme, 12(2), 225–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kruse, A. (2017). Why doxastic responsibility is not based on direct doxastic control. Synthese, 194(8), 2811–2842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levy, N. (2007). Doxastic responsibility. Synthese, 155(1), 127–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McCormick, M. (2011). Taking control of belief. Philosophical Explorations, 14(2), 169–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McHugh, C. (2013). Epistemic responsibility and doxastic agency. Philosophical Issues, 23(1), 132–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meylan, A. (2013). Foundations of an ethics of belief (Vol. 15). Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Steup, M. (2000). Doxastic voluntarism and epistemic deontology. Acta Analytica, 15, 25–56.Google Scholar
  26. Steup, M. (2008). Doxastic freedom. Synthese, 161, 375–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stokes, D. (2013). Cognitive penetrability of perception. Philosophy Compass, 8(7), 646–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wedgwood, R. (2002). The aim of belief. Philosophical Perspectives, 36(s16), 267–97.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Robitzsch
    • 1
  1. 1.University of OsnabrückOsnabrückGermany

Personalised recommendations