Results for 'epistemic responsibility'

1000+ found
Order:
See also
  1. Epistemic Responsibility.Lorraine Code - 1987 - Published for Brown University Press by University Press of New England.
  2. Shared Epistemic Responsibility.Boyd Millar - 2021 - Episteme 18 (4):493-506.
    It is widely acknowledged that individual moral obligations and responsibility entail shared moral obligations and responsibility. However, whether individual epistemic obligations and responsibility entail shared epistemic obligations and responsibility is rarely discussed. Instead, most discussions of doxastic responsibility focus on individuals considered in isolation. In contrast to this standard approach, I maintain that focusing exclusively on individuals in isolation leads to a profoundly incomplete picture of what we're epistemically obligated to do and when (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  3. Epistemic Responsibility and Doxastic Agency.Conor McHugh - 2013 - Philosophical Issues 23 (1):132-157.
  4. Epistemic Responsibility Without Epistemic Agency.Pascal Engel - 2009 - Philosophical Explorations 12 (2):205 – 219.
    This article discusses the arguments against associating epistemic responsibility with the ordinary notion of agency. I examine the various 'Kantian' views which lead to a distinctive conception of epistemic agency and epistemic responsibility. I try to explain why we can be held responsible for our beliefs in the sense of obeying norms which regulate them without being epistemic agents.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 citations  
  5. The Epistemic Responsibilities of Citizens in a Democracy.Cameron Boult - forthcoming - In Jeroen De Ridder & Michael Hannon (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Political Epistemology.
    The chapter develops a taxonomy of views about the epistemic responsibilities of citizens in a democracy. Prominent approaches to epistemic democracy, epistocracy, epistemic libertarianism, and pure proceduralism are examined through the lens of this taxonomy. The primary aim is to explore options for developing an account of the epistemic responsibilities of citizens in a democracy. The chapter also argues that a number of recent attacks on democracy may not adequately register the availability of a minimal approach (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  6.  30
    Epistemic Responsibility and Criminal Negligence.Alexander Greenberg - 2020 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 14 (1):91-111.
    We seem to be responsible for our beliefs in a distinctively epistemic way. We often hold each other to account for the beliefs that we hold. We do this by criticising other believers as ‘gullible’ or ‘biased’, and by trying to persuade others to revise their beliefs. But responsibility for belief looks hard to understand because we seem to lack control over our beliefs. In this paper, I argue that we can make progress in our understanding of (...) for belief by thinking about it in parallel with another kind of responsibility: legal responsibility for criminal negligence. Specifically, I argue that that a popular account of responsibility for belief, which grounds it in belief’s reasons-responsiveness, faces a problem analogous to one faced by H.L.A. Hart’s influential capacity-based account of culpability. This points towards a more promising account of responsibility of belief, though, if we draw on accounts of negligence that improve on Hart’s. Broadly speaking, the account of negligence that improves on Hart’s account grounds culpability in a concern for others’ interests, whereas my account of epistemic responsibility grounds responsibility for belief in a concern for the truth. (shrink)
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  7. On Epistemic Responsibility While Remembering the Past: The Case of Individual and Historical Memories.Marina Trakas - 2019 - Les Ateliers de l'Éthique / the Ethics Forum 14 (2):240-273.
    The notion of epistemic responsibility applied to memory has been in general examined in the framework of the responsibilities that a collective holds for past injustices, but it has never been the object of an analysis of its own. In this article, I propose to isolate and explore it in detail. For this purpose, I start by conceptualizing the epistemic responsibility applied to individual memories. I conclude that an epistemic responsible individual rememberer is a vigilant (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  8. Epistemic Responsibility.J. Angelo Corlett - 2008 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 16 (2):179 – 200.
    Given the hundreds of articles and books that have been written in epistemology over the span of just the past few decades, relatively little has been written specifically on epistemic responsibility. What has been written rarely considers the nature of epistemic responsibility and its possible role in epistemic justification or knowledge. Instead, such work concerns philosophical analyses and arguments about related concepts such as epistemic virtues or duties, rather than epistemic praiseworthiness and blameworthiness.2 (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  9. Epistemic Responsibility and Implicit Bias.Nancy McHugh & Lacey J. Davidson - 2020 - In Erin Beeghly & Alex Madva (eds.), Introduction to Implicit Bias. New York, NY, USA: pp. 174-190.
    A topic of special importance when it comes to responsibility and implicit bias is responsibility for knowledge. Are there strategies for becoming more responsible and respectful knowers? How might we work together, not just as individuals but members of collectives, to reduce the negative effects of bias on what we see and believe, as well as the wrongs associated with epistemic injustice? To explore these questions, Chapter 9 introduces the concept of epistemic responsibility, a set (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  10.  83
    Epistemic Responsibility and Critical Thinking.Anand Jayprakash Vaidya - 2013 - Metaphilosophy 44 (4):533-556.
    Should we always engage in critical thinking about issues of public policy, such as health care, gun control, and LGBT rights? Michael Huemer (2005) has argued for the claim that in some cases it is not epistemically responsible to engage in critical thinking on these issues. His argument is based on a reliabilist conception of the value of critical thinking. This article analyzes Huemer's argument against the epistemic responsibility of critical thinking by engaging it critically. It presents an (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  11.  60
    Epistemic Responsibility.Laurence BonJour - 1990 - Philosophical Review 99 (1):123.
  12. Epistemic Responsibility: A Dilemma.Stephen Hetherington - 2002 - The Monist 85 (3):398-414.
    Might epistemic justification be, to some substantive extent, a function of epistemic responsibility—a belief's being formed, or its being maintained, in an epistemically responsible way? I will call any analysis of epistemic justification endorsing that kind of idea epistemic responsibilism—or, for short, responsibilism. Many epistemic internalists are responsibilists, because they think that what makes a belief justified is its being appropriately related to one's good evidence for it, and because many of them regard this (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  13.  58
    Epistemic Responsibility and Democratic Justification: Robert B. Talisse: Democracy and Moral Conflict. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009, 216 Pp.Andrew F. Smith - 2011 - Res Publica 17 (3):297-302.
    Epistemic Responsibility and Democratic Justification Content Type Journal Article Pages 297-302 DOI 10.1007/s11158-011-9147-1 Authors Andrew F. Smith, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA Journal Res Publica Online ISSN 1572-8692 Print ISSN 1356-4765 Journal Volume Volume 17 Journal Issue Volume 17, Number 3.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  14.  26
    An Externalist Approach to Epistemic Responsibility: Intellectual Norms and Their Application to Epistemic Peer Disagreement.Andrea Robitzsch - 2019 - Springer Verlag.
    This monograph provides a novel reliabilist approach to epistemic responsibility assessment. The author presents unique arguments for the epistemic significance of belief-influencing actions and omissions. She grounds her proposal in indirect doxastic control. The book consists of four chapters. The first two chapters look at the different ways in which an agent might control the revision, retention, or rejection of her beliefs. They provide a systematic overview of the different approaches to doxastic control and contain a thorough (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  15.  56
    Arendt, Truth, and Epistemic Responsibility.Yasemin Sari - 2018 - Arendt Studies 2:149-170.
    In this article, I offer a politico-philosophical perspective to reassess the much-contested role of truth in politics to put forth a principle of political action that will make sense of a “right to unmanipulated factual information,” which Hannah Arendt understands as crucial for establishing freedom of opinion. In developing a principle of epistemic responsibility, I will show that “factual truth” plays a key role in Arendt’s account of political action and provides a normative order that can extricate her (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  16. Justified Belief and Epistemically Responsible Action.Hilary Kornblith - 1983 - Philosophical Review 92 (1):33-48.
  17. Justification, Coherence, and Epistemic Responsibility in Legal Fact-Finding.Amalia Amaya - 2008 - Episteme 5 (3):pp. 306-319.
    This paper argues for a coherentist theory of the justification of evidentiary judgments in law, according to which a hypothesis about the events being litigated is justified if and only if it is such that an epistemically responsible fact-finder might have accepted it as justified by virtue of its coherence in like circumstances. It claims that this version of coherentism has the resources to address a main problem facing coherence theories of evidence and legal proof, namely, the problem of the (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  18.  12
    Epistemic Responsibility.John Heil - 1989 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 49 (4):742-745.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  19.  3
    Epistemic Responsibility in Business: An Integrative Framework for an Epistemic Ethics.Erwan Lamy - forthcoming - Journal of Business Ethics:1-14.
    How can we make businesspeople more concerned about the truth of the information they spread or allow to circulate? In this age of ‘fake news’, ‘business bullshit’ and ‘post-truth,’ the issue is of the utmost importance, especially for business trustworthiness in the internet economy. The issue is related to a kind of epistemic responsibility, that consists in accounting for one’s own epistemic wrongdoings, such as making a third party believe something false. Despite growing interest in epistemic (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  20.  57
    Critical Thinking is Epistemically Responsible.Juho Ritola - 2012 - Metaphilosophy 43 (5):659-678.
    Michael Huemer () argues that following the epistemic strategy of Critical Thinking—that is, thinking things through for oneself—leaves the agent epistemically either worse off or no better off than an alternative strategy of Credulity—that is, trusting the authorities. Therefore, Critical Thinking is not epistemically responsible. This article argues that Reasonable Credulity entails Critical Thinking, and since Reasonable Credulity is epistemically responsible, the Critical Thinking that it entails is epistemically responsible too.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  21. Internalism and Epistemically Responsible Belief.John Greco - 1990 - Synthese 85 (2):245 - 277.
    In section one the deontological (or responsibilist) conception of justification is discussed and explained. In section two, arguments are put forward in order to derive the most plausible version of perspectival internalism, or the position that epistemic justification is a function of factors internal to the believer's cognitive perspective. The two most common considerations put forward in favor of perspectival internalism are discussed. These are the responsibilist conception of justification, and the intuition that two believers with like beliefs and (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   32 citations  
  22. Epistemically Responsible Action.Kenneth Boyd - 2014 - Dissertation,
    We are often, as agents, responsible for the things we do and say. This responsibility can come in a number of different forms: here I propose and defend a view of how we are epistemically responsible for our actions and assertions. In other normative areas, we can be responsible for our actions when those actions violate a norm (for example, we can be morally responsible when we violate some moral norm). I argue that we can similarly be epistemically responsible (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  23. 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.
    Any theory of perceptual experience should elucidate the way humans exploit it in activities proper to responsible agents, like justifying and revising their beliefs. In this paper I examine the hypothesis that this capacity requires the positing of a perceptual awareness involving a pre-doxastic actualization of concepts. I conclude that this hypothesis is neither necessary nor sufficient to account for empirical rationality. This leaves open the possibility to introduce a doxastic account, according to which the epistemic function of perception (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  24.  2
    Epistemic Responsibility, Rights, and Duties During the Covid-19 Pandemic.Artur Karimov, Andrea Lavazza & Mirko Farina - forthcoming - Social Epistemology:1-17.
  25. Pragmatic Encroachment and Epistemically Responsible Action.Kenneth Boyd - 2016 - Synthese 193 (9).
    One prominent argument for pragmatic encroachment (PE) is that PE is entailed by a combination of a principle that states that knowledge warrants proper practical reasoning, and judgments that it is more difficult to reason well when the stakes go up. I argue here that this argument is unsuccessful. One problem is that empirical tests concerning knowledge judgments in high-stakes situations only sometimes exhibit the result predicted by PE. I argue here that those judgments that appear to support PE are (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  26. Trust, Authority and Epistemic Responsibility.Gloria Origgi - 2008 - Theoria: Revista de Teoría, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia 23 (1):35-44.
    In this paper I argue that the epistemology of trust and testimony should take into account the pragmatics of communication in order to gain insight about the responsibilities speakers and hearers share in the epistemic access they gain through communication. Communication is a rich process of information exchangein which epistemic standards are negotiated by interlocutors. I discuss examples which show the contextual adjustment of these standards as the conversation goes on. Our sensitivity to the contextual dimension of (...) standards make us more responsible communicators. (shrink)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  27.  53
    Epistemic Trust, Epistemic Responsibility, and Medical Practice.A. P. Schwab - 2008 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 33 (4):302-320.
    Epistemic trust is an unacknowledged feature of medical knowledge. Claims of medical knowledge made by physicians, patients, and others require epistemic trust. And yet, it would be foolish to define all epistemic trust as epistemically responsible. Accordingly, I use a routine example in medical practice to illustrate how epistemically responsible trust in medicine is trust in epistemically responsible individuals. I go on to illustrate how certain areas of current medical practice of medicine fall short of adequately distinguishing (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  28.  15
    Epistemic Responsibility.Harry Redner - 1988 - Review of Metaphysics 42 (1):134-135.
    In a review of the recent Heidegger controversy, Richard Rorty maintains that "as a human being Heidegger was a rather nasty piece of work--a coward and a liar, pretty much from first to last" but, nevertheless, that "Heidegger was as original a philosopher as we have had in this century." According to Rorty, "being an original philosopher is like being an original mathematician or an original microbiologist or a consummate chess master: it is the result of some neural kink that (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  29. Is Critical Thinking Epistemically Responsible?Michael Huemer - 2005 - Metaphilosophy 36 (4):522-531.
    Three ways of approaching controversial issues are: (i) To accept the conclusions of experts on their authority; (ii) to evaluate the relevant evidence/arguments for ourselves; and (iii) to simply withhold judgement. The received view recommends strategy (ii). But (ii) is normally epistemically inferior to (i) and (iii), since we are justified in believing that it is less reliable at producing true beliefs and avoiding false ones.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  30. Immediate Warrant, Epistemic Responsibility, and Moorean Dogmatism.Adam Leite - 2011 - In Andrew Reisner & Asbjørn Steglich-Petersen (eds.), Reasons for Belief. Cambridge University Press.
    “Moorean Dogmatist” responses to external world skepticism endorse courses of reasoning that many people find objectionable. This paper seeks to locate this dissatisfaction in considerations about epistemic responsibility. I sketch a theory of immediate warrant and show how it can be combined with plausible “inferential internalist” demands arising from considerations of epistemic responsibility. The resulting view endorses immediate perceptual warrant but forbids the sort of reasoning that “Moorean Dogmatism” would allow. A surprising result is that Dogmatism’s (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  31. A Defence of Epistemic Responsibility: Why Laziness and Ignorance Are Bad After All.Katherine Puddifoot - 2014 - Synthese 191 (14):3297-3309.
    It has been suggested, by Michael Bishop, that empirical evidence on human reasoning poses a threat to the internalist account of epistemic responsibility, which he takes to associate being epistemically responsible with coherence, evidence-fitting and reasons-responsiveness. Bishop claims that the empirical data challenges the importance of meeting these criteria by emphasising how it is possible to obtain true beliefs by diverging from them. He suggests that the internalist conception of responsibility should be replaced by one that properly (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  32.  56
    Epistemic Responsibility and Ecological Thinking.Phyllis Rooney - 2008 - Hypatia 23 (1):170-176.
  33.  55
    Epistemic Responsibility.Susan Haack - 1991 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 21 (1):91-107.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  34. Epistemic Responsibility and the Inuit of Canada's Eastern Arctic: An Ecofeminist Appraisal.Douglas Buege - 1997 - In Karen Warren (ed.), Ecofeminism: Women, Culture, Nature. Indiana Univ Pr. pp. 99--111.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  35.  14
    Epistemic Responsibility and Ecological Thinking.Phyllis Rooney - 2008 - Hypatia 23 (1):170-176.
  36.  27
    Epistemic Responsibility Lorraine Code Hanover: University Press of New England, 1987. Xi + 272 P., $28.00.Susan-Judith Hoffmann - 1990 - Dialogue 29 (3):466-.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  37.  2
    Critical Thinking and Epistemic Responsibility Revisited.Surajit Barua - 2021 - Journal of the Indian Council of Philosophical Research 38 (3):285-299.
    It is generally assumed that critical thinking is the preferred mode of inquiry in all situations. However, Michael Huemer, in 2005, has presented an interesting and powerful challenge to this received view. He aims to establish the claim that in some contexts of inquiry, engaging in critical thinking is not epistemically responsible. If true, this implies that critical thinking should not be adopted uncritically. Several writers have objected to this counterintuitive view. In this paper, I show that those objections do (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  38.  9
    "Epistemic Responsibility" by Lorraine Code. [REVIEW]John Heil - 1989 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 49 (4):742.
  39.  14
    Epistemic Responsibility.Paul K. Moser - 1988 - Philosophical Books 29 (3):154-156.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  40.  42
    Epistemic Vigilance and Epistemic Responsibility in the Liquid World of Scientific Publications.Gloria Origgi - 2010 - Social Epistemology 24 (3):149-159.
    In this paper I try to challenge some received views about the role and the function of the traditional academic practice of publishing papers in peer?reviewed journals. I argue that our publishing practices today are rather based on passively accepted social norms and humdrum work habits than on actual needs for communicating the advancements of our research. By analysing some examples of devices and practices that are based on tacitly accepted norms, such as the Citation Index and the new role (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  41. Responsibility for Collective Epistemic Harms.Will Fleisher & Dunja Šešelja - forthcoming - Philosophy of Science:1-41.
    Discussion of epistemic responsibility typically focuses on belief formation and actions leading to it. Similarly, accounts of collective epistemic responsibility have addressed the issue of collective belief formation and associated actions. However, there has been little discussion of collective responsibility for preventing epistemic harms, particularly those preventable only by the collective action of an unorganized group. We propose an account of collective epistemic responsibility which fills this gap. Building on Hindriks' (2019) account (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  42. The Ableism of Quality of Life Judgments in Disorders of Consciousness: Who Bears Epistemic Responsibility?Joel Michael Reynolds - 2016 - American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 7 (1):59-61.
    In this peer commentary on L. Syd M. Johnson’s “Inference and Inductive Risk in Disorders of Consciousness,” I argue for the necessity of disability education as an integral component of decision-making processes concerning patients with DOC and, mutatis mutandis, all patients with disabilities. The sole qualification Johnson places on such decision-making is that stakeholders are educated about and “understand the uncertainties of diagnosis and prognosis.” Drawing upon research in philosophy of disability, social epistemology, and health psychology, I argue that this (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  43. Can Atheism Be Epistemically Responsible When So Many People Believe in God?Sébasten Réhault - 2015 - European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 7 (1):181--198.
    Nowadays the argument for the existence of God based on the common consent of mankind is taken to be so bad that contemporary atheists do not even bother to mention it. And it seems very few theists think that the argument is worth defending. In this paper I shall argue to the contrary: not only is the argument better than usually thought, but widespread belief in God constitutes a prima facie defeater for every reasonable atheist.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  44.  77
    Epistemic Virtue and Epistemic Responsibility.Charlotte Katzoff - 2001 - Dialectica 55 (2):105–118.
    In this paper, I propose a principle of doxastic rationality based on Bernard Williams's argument against doxastic voluntarism. This principle, I go on to show, undermines a number of notions of epistemic duty which have been put forth within the framework of virtue theory. I then suggest an alternative formulation which remains within the bounds of rationality allowed for by my principle. In the end, I suggest that the failure of the earlier formulations and the adoption of the latter (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  45.  92
    The Possibility of Epistemic Responsibility.Miguel Ángel Fernández - 2013 - Philosophical Issues 23 (1):109-131.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  46.  64
    Care, Concern, and Advocacy: Is There a Place for Epistemic Responsibility?Lorraine Code - 2015 - Feminist Philosophy Quarterly 1 (1):1-20.
    Departing from an epistemological tradition for which knowledge properly achieved must be objective, especially in eschewing affect and/or special interests; and against a backdrop of my thinking about epistemic responsibility, I focus on two situations where care informs and enables good knowing. The implicit purpose of this reclamation of care as epistemically vital is to show emphatically that standard alignments of care with femininity—the female—are simply misguided. Proposing that the efficacy of epistemic practices is often enhanced when (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  47.  47
    Ecological Naturalism: Epistemic Responsibility and the Politics of Knowledge.Lorraine Code - 2005 - Dialogue and Universalism 15 (5-6):87-102.
    The thesis of this paper is, first, that ecological thinking—which takes its point of departure from specifically located, multifaceted analyses of knowledge production and circulation in diverse demographic and geographic locations—can generate more responsible knowings than the reductivism of the positivist post-Enlightenment legacy allows; and second, that ecological thinking can spark a revolution comparable to Kant’s Copernican revolution, which recentered western thought by moving “man” to the center of the philosophical-conceptual universe. Kantian philosophy was parochial in the conception of “man” (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  48.  8
    Epistemic Virtue and Epistemic Responsibility.Charlotte Katzoff - 2001 - Dialectica 55 (2):105-118.
    Virtue epistemology construes intellectual virtue as a reliable ability to form true beliefs. Responsibilist versions seek to substitute for the passive, reliabilist model of the knower, that of an active subject who deliberately and purposefully exercises traits of character which tend to result in true beliefs. On these views, the disposition to exercise these epistemic virtues gives rise to notions of epistemic duty.In this paper, I propose a principle of doxastic rationality based on Bernard Williams’argument against doxastic voluntarism. (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  49.  44
    IX—Equal Opportunity: A Unifying Framework for Moral, Aesthetic, and Epistemic Responsibility.Dana Kay Nelkin - 2020 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 120 (2):203-235.
    On the one hand, there seem to be compelling parallels to moral responsibility, blameworthiness, and praiseworthiness in domains other than the moral. For example, we often praise people for their aesthetic and epistemic achievements and blame them for their failures. On the other hand, it has been argued that there is something special about the moral domain, so that at least one robust kind of responsibility can only be found there. In this paper, I argue that we (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  50. Lorraine Code, Epistemic Responsibility Reviewed By.Bruce Hunter - 1988 - Philosophy in Review 8 (11):433-435.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
1 — 50 / 1000