Epistemic Deontologism and Strong Doxastic Voluntarism: A Defense

The following claims are independently plausible but jointly inconsistent: (1) epistemic deontologism is correct (i.e., there are some beliefs we ought to have, and some beliefs we ought not to have); (2) we have no voluntary control over our beliefs; (3) S’s lack of control over whether she φs implies that S has no obligation to φ or to not φ (i.e., ought-implies-can). The point of this paper is to argue that there are active and passive aspects of belief, which can come apart, and to argue that deontological epistemic evaluations apply to the active aspect of belief.

Hobartian Voluntarism and Epistemic Deontologism

Mark Heller has recently offered a proposal in defense of a fairly strong version of doxastic voluntarism. Heller looks to the compatibilist theory of free will proposed by R.E. Hobart in the first half of the twentieth century for an account of doxastic control. Heller’s defense of Hobartian Voluntarism is motivated by an appeal to epistemic deontologism. In this paper I argue that Heller’s defense of a version of strong or direct doxastic voluntarism ultimately fails. I finally argue that the failure of his theory of epistemic agency does not imply the untenability of epistemic deontologism.

Deontologismo epistêmico:uma abordagem subjetivista

Das coisas que podem ser ditas sobre a noção de justificação epistêmica, a melhor delas é que ela é uma condição necessária para a obtenção de conhecimento. Entretanto, há quem pense que, mesmo que o Deontologismo Epistêmico seja sustentável, o cumprimento de deveres epistêmicos não seria uma condição necessária para o conhecimento. Alguém poderia violar seus deveres epistêmicos e ter conhecimento. O meu propósito, neste ensaio, é investigar se o cumprimento de deveres epistêmicos é ou não uma condição necessária para o conhecimento. PALAVRAS-CHAVE – Deontologismo epistêmico. Deveres epistêmicos. Justificação epistêmica, Conhecimento. Epistemologia. ABSTRACT Of all the things that can be said about the notion of epistemic justification, the best is that it is a necessary condition for the acquisition of knowledge. However, there are those who think that, even if Epistemic Deontologism is a tenable view, the fulfillment of epistemic duties is not a necessary condition of knowledge. It would be possible for someone to violate his epistemic duties and still have knowledge. My aim in this essay is to inquire into whether the fulfillment of epistemic duties is a necessary condition of knowledge. KEY WORDS – Epistemic deontologism. Epistemic duties. Epistemic justification. Knowledge. Epistemology.