Summary |
Every variant of virtue epistemology holds
to two basic resolutions: (1) that epistemology is a normative discipline and (2)
that “intellectual agents and communities are the primary source of epistemic
value and the primary focus of epistemic evaluation” (Greco and Turri, 2011). The former amounts to a rejection of Quine's proposal in
“Epistemology Naturalized” (1969) that epistemologists should give up on attempts
to discern what is reasonable to believe in favor of projects within cognitive
psychology and a call for epistemologists to “focus their efforts on
understanding epistemic norms, value and evaluation”. To better understand the second resolution think of virtue ethics. For the two titans of moral
philosophy, Kantian deontology and utilitarianism, the starting place for moral
evaluation is action. For Kantians
and for utilitarians, the question to ask when doing ethics is “What should I
do?” For virtue
ethicists, the starting place for moral evaluation is the agent—his
or her character—and subsequently the virtue ethicist asks a different
question, “How should I live?”. Instead of focusing on the beliefs of agents (whether
or not they are justified, safe, etc.), virtue epistemologists predominantly
focus on the agent f—on whether he or she has the right sort
of epistemic character, the right sort of cognitive faculties, whether he or
she is epistemically virtuous or not. Other theories of knowledge
will give some account of epistemic virtues—good memory, intellectual courage,
etc.—but usually in terms of knowledge; the radical claim that virtue
epistemology makes is that knowledge is defined in terms of virtue. |