Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:04:29.870Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

REASONS TO BELIEVE AND REASONS TO ACT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2016

Stewart Cohen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I consider the structural differences between reasons to believe and reasons to act. I argue that Mark Schroeder's project of providing a unified account of reasons to believe and reasons to act faces serious difficulties. I also investigate the difference between rational requirement and rational permission. While the difference between these notions in the case of action is a matter of the strength of one's reasons, I argue that in the case of belief, the difference depends on what one is attending to.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 13 , Special Issue 4: 2015 Episteme Conference , December 2016 , pp. 427 - 438
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Cohen, S. 2012. ‘Does Practical Rationality Constrain Epistemic Rationality?’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 85: 447–55.Google Scholar
Comesana, J. and Tal, E. 2015. ‘Is Evidence of Evidence, Evidence?’ Nous. doi: 10.1111/nous.12101.Google Scholar
Harman, G. 2002. ‘Practical Aspects of Theoretical Reasoning.’ In Mele, A. and Rawling, P. (eds), The Oxford Handbook to Rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. 1999. Projecting the Adjective: The Syntax and Semantics of Gradability and Comparison. New York, NY: Garland Press.Google Scholar
Fantl, J. and McGrath, M. 2009. Knowledge in an Uncertain World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, J. and Cruz, J. 1999. Contemporary Theories of Knowledge. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Schroeder, M. 2012. ‘Stakes, Withholding, and Pragmatic Encroachment on Knowledge.’ Philosophical Studies, 160: 265–85.Google Scholar
Schroeder, M. 2015a. ‘Knowledge is Belief for Sufficient (Objective and Subjective) Reason.’ Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 5: 226–52.Google Scholar
Schroeder, M. 2015b. “What Makes Reasons Sufficient?’ American Philosophical Quarterly, 52: 159–70.Google Scholar