Review of Rik Peels' Responsible Belief: A Theory in Ethics and Epistemology [Book Review]

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 201710 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this book, Rik Peels provides a comprehensive original account of intellectual duties, doxastic blameworthiness, and responsible belief. The discussions, relating to work in epistemology as well as moral responsibility, are clear and often provide useful entries into the literature. Though I disagree with some of the main conclusions, the arguments are carefully laid out and typically merit a good amount of thought even where one remains unconvinced. After providing an overview of the contents, I specifically suggest that Peels theory fails to account for one important kind of doxastic obligations and doxastic blame.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Why responsible belief is blameless belief.Anthony Robert Booth & Rik Peels - 2010 - Journal of Philosophy 107 (5):257-265.
Against Doxastic Compatibilism.Rik Peels - 2014 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 89 (1):679-702.
Doxastic Responsibility.Neil Levy - 2007 - Synthese 155 (1):127-155.
In defense of doxastic blame.Lindsay Rettler - 2018 - Synthese 195 (5):2205-2226.
Epistemic Responsibility and Perceptual Experience.Santiago Echeverri - 2011 - In David Lauer, Christophe Laudou, Robin Celikates & Georg W. Bertram (eds.), Expérience Et Réflexivité: Perspectives au-Delà de L’Empirisme Et de L’Idéalisme. L'harmattan. pp. 14p.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-10-18

Downloads
264 (#73,700)

6 months
54 (#77,219)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Gunnar Björnsson
Stockholm University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Explaining away epistemic skepticism about culpability.Gunnar Björnsson - 2017 - In Shoemaker David (ed.), Oxford Studies in Agency and Responsibility. Oxford University Press. pp. 141–164.

Add more references