DOCSLIB.ORG

The Truth Norm Account of Justification

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Truth Norm Account of Justification THE TRUTH NORM ACCOUNT OF JUSTIFICATION Alexander Greenberg Trinity Hall University of Cambridge 6th July 2017 This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE TRUTH NORM ACCOUNT OF JUSTIFICATION ABSTRACT This thesis is about the relationship between a belief being justified and it being true. It defends a version of the view that the fundamental point of having a justified belief is to have a true one. The particular version of that view it defends is the claim that belief is subject to a truth norm – i.e. a norm or standard that says that one should believe something if and only if it’s true. It claims that belief being subject to such a truth norm can explain which beliefs count as justified and which do not. After introducing the idea of a truth norm (Ch. 1), the argument of my thesis involves two main stages. Part One of the thesis (Chs. 2-3) contains the first stage, in which I argue that my way of arguing for a truth norm, on the basis of its explanatory role in epistemology, is much more likely to be successful than a more popular way of arguing for a truth norm, on the basis of its explanatory role in the philosophy of mind. Part Two (Chs. 4-7) contains the second stage, in which I argue that the truth norm can indeed explain justification in the way I’ve outlined. I do this by answering four criticisms that have been made of the claim that belief is subject to a truth norm. These criticisms claim that a truth norm should be rejected because, in turn, a truth norm cannot guide belief formation (Ch. 4), because a truth norm prescribes believing all the truths (Ch. 5), because a truth norm never prescribes suspending judgement (Ch. 6), and because a truth norm in some cases prescribes making problematic trade-offs of having one false belief for the sake of having many true beliefs (Ch. 7). I argue that all of these criticisms fail. But it is through answering these criticisms that we can see the contours of a defensible explanation of justification in terms of the truth norm. Alexander Greenberg July 2017 i DECLARATION This thesis is 78,612 words in length. The word count, including footnotes and references, falls within the range specified by the Degree Committee of the Faculty of Philosophy. This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except as specified in the text. It is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University. I further state that no substantial part of my dissertation has already been submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for any such degree, diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS For financial support, I’d like to thank the Arts and Humanities Research Council for funding this thesis, the Cambridge Philosophy Faculty and an anonymous donor for writing-up grants, and my college, Trinity Hall, for travel grants. I’d like to thank my supervisors, Tim Crane and Arif Ahmed. Throughout this thesis I owe so much to their help. I’d also like to thank Tim in particular for continuing to support and to have faith in me during the times in which work was difficult, especially in the periods before and after my intermission. I also thank my examiners, Pascal Engel and Richard Holton, for a rich and helpful discussion of the thesis. Special thanks are due to Lucy Campbell and to Chris Cowie for countless discussions, which aided me immeasurably in writing this thesis. For various philosophical discussions over the past five years, I also thank Lukas Skiba, Dan Brigham, Fiona Doherty, Nakul Krishna, Bernard Salow, Lubomira Radoilska, Louise Hanson, Rob Trueman, Tim Button, Rae Langton, Jane Heal, and Hugh Mellor. Thanks are in particular due to those who have read and commented on work that would form part of this thesis, Lucy Campbell, Chris Cowie, Nakul Krishna, Fiona Doherty, Bernard Salow, Selim Berker, and Conor McHugh. I’m also grateful to audiences in Cambridge, Edinburgh, Fortaleza, and King’s College London, who listened to and commented on previous incarnations of various parts of this thesis. I’d also like to thank the various friends, both old and new, who have kept my spirits up over the last five years, in particular Lucy Campbell, Chris Cowie, Lukas Skiba, Ellisif Wasmuth, Jenni Sidey, Nakul Krishna, Fiona Doherty, Dan Brigham, Christopher Clarke, Ian Felce, Raphael von Blumenthal, Mark Johnson, Jack Miller, Sam Baron, James Dowman, Simon Coplowe, and Ross Frame. I’d also like to thank the members of the Trinity Hall rugby team, and the gardens teams of Trinity Hall and King’s College Cambridge (epecially Helen Cripps), with whom I worked during my intermission. I’d also like to thank Chris Rowland and Heather Sanderson. Special thanks are due to my family – my parents in particular – for putting me up (and putting up with me) for a year when I had nowhere else to live. Thanks to my erstwhile roommate Eggbert for keeping me company. And most of all thanks to Lucy Campbell for keeping me sane, and for tirelessly reminding me, despite my protestations, that writing this thesis was possible. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary of Chapters ............................................................................................................... 1 List of Norms and Principles ................................................................................................... 5 Chapter 1. Introduction............................................................................................................ 9 1. The truth norm account of justification in context ................................................ 10 1.1. Veritism ...................................................................................................................... 10 1.2. Justification as a normative notion ........................................................................... 12 2. How a truth norm explains justification .................................................................. 16 2.1. Objective and subjective norms on belief ............................................................... 19 2.2. What are the ‘good means’ of conforming to a truth norm? ................................. 22 3. Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 26 Part Two. How and How Not to Argue for a Truth Norm ............................................... 29 Chapter 2. How Not to Argue For a Truth Norm .............................................................. 31 1. Can a truth norm explain what distinguishes belief from other attitudes? ........... 32 2. Can a truth norm explain the normativity of content? ........................................... 37 3. Can a truth norm explain the transparency of doxastic deliberation? ................... 40 4. Can a truth norm explain the impossibility of believing at will? ............................ 47 5. Can a truth norm explain Moore’s paradox? ........................................................... 50 6. A better way: belief is subject to a truth norm because that explains epistemic justification ................................................................................................................. 54 6.1. The appeal to this methodology in ethics ................................................................ 57 6.2. A limitation of this methodology ............................................................................. 62 7. Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 63 Chapter 3. The Unity of Justification .................................................................................... 65 1. Different methods that justify beliefs ...................................................................... 65 1.1. Why something must unify different methods that justify beliefs......................... 66 1.2. What could unify different methods that justify beliefs? ....................................... 69 1.3. How a truth norm unifies different methods that justify beliefs ........................... 72 2. Different properties that bear on the justification of a belief ................................ 75 vii 2.1. The variety of properties of a belief that can bear on its justification ................... 76 2.2. Why something must unify the different properties that bear on the justification of belief ....................................................................................................................... 80 2.3. How a truth norm unifies the different properties that bear on the justification of belief ........................................................................................................................... 82 3. Alternative explanations of what unifies justification ............................................. 88 3.1. A knowledge norm .................................................................................................... 88 3.2. An evidence norm ..................................................................................................... 91 3.2.1. The common-sense concept of evidence ................................................................ 92 3.2.2. A probabilistic conception of evidence ..................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Nature of Moral Understanding Course Guide 2018-19
    PHIL10099: Nature of Moral Understanding 2018/19 Course Guide Course Lecturer: David Levy ([email protected]) Office Location: Dugald Stewart 5.10 Office Hour: Tuesday 4.10-5.10pm Course Secretary: Ann-Marie Cowe ([email protected]) Contents 1. Course Aims and Objectives 2. Intended Learning Outcomes 3. Seminar Times and Locations 4. Seminar Content 5. Readings 6. Assessment 7. Useful Information Department of Philosophy School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences University of Edinburgh 1. Course Aims and Objectives There is a distinctive experience that humans have when they think about situations that seem to involve moral considerations. While these experiences may be amenable to theoretical formalisation, there is important philosophical reflection to be done without theory. What do people understand when they understand a situation as demanding moral consideration, reflection or decision? This course aims to make progress with this and related questions and in the process complement our other courses in ethics and ethical theory. The central question with which this course is concerned is: what is the nature of the understanding someone has when they engage with their moral concerns? These moral concerns are considered to arise in relatively ordinary situations of the kinds presented in life, literature and film. These situations include decisions about what to do in a situation; wondering about one’s life; questions of whether one is under a moral obligation; contemplation of shame or guilt. In this sense, this course is a philosophical examination of various phenomena—moral phenomena—about which philosophical theories are constructed. The main goals will be to focus on the nature of the understanding we have of these phenomena with a view to clarifying which are their essential features and which do not distinguish them.
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotelian Virtue Ethics and the Self-Absorption Objection
    ARISTOTELIAN VIRTUE ETHICS AND THE SELF-ABSORPTION OBJECTION ARISTOTELIAN VIRTUE ETHICS AND THE SELF-ABSORPTION OBJECTION BY JEFFREY D’SOUZA, M.A. A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy McMaster University © Copyright Jeffrey D’Souza, March 2017 McMaster University DOCTOR OF ARTS (2017) Hamilton, Ontario (Philosophy) TITLE: Aristotelian Virtue Ethics and the Self-Absorption Objection AUTHOR: Jeffrey D’Souza, M.A. (Ryerson University); H.B.A. (University of Toronto) SUPERVISOR: Professor Mark Johnstone NUMBER OF PAGES: vii, 155 ii Lay Abstract: In this dissertation, I advance a neo-Aristotelian account of moral motivation that is immune from what I call the “self-absorption objection.” Roughly, proponents of this objection state that the main problem with neo- Aristotelian accounts of moral motivation is that they wrongly prescribe that our ultimate reason for acting virtuously is the fact that doing so is good for us. In an attempt to sidestep this objection, I offer what I call the altruistic account of motivation. On this account, the virtuous agent’s main reason for acting virtuously is based on her desire to act in accordance with a particular conception of the good life, where what makes such a conception good is not that it is good for her, but rather good, qua human goodness. iii Abstract: Aristotelian eudaimonism – as Daniel Russell puts it – is understood as two things at once: it is the final end for practical reasoning, and it is a good human life for the one living it.
    [Show full text]
  • Nature of Moral Understanding 2016/17 Course Guide
    PHIL10099: Nature of Moral Understanding 2016/17 Course Guide Course Lecturer: David Levy ([email protected]) Office Location: Dugald Stewart 5.10 Office Hour: Tuesday 4-5 Course Secretary: Ann-Marie Cowe ([email protected]) Contents 1. Course Aims and Objectives 2. Intended Learning Outcomes 3. Seminar Times and Locations 4. Seminar Content 5. Readings 6. Assessment 7. Useful Information Department of Philosophy School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences University of Edinburgh 1. Course Aims and Objectives There is a distinctive experience that humans have when they think about situations that seem to involve moral considerations. While these experiences may be amenable to theoretical formalisation, there is important philosophical reflection to be done without theory. What do people understand when they understand a situation as demanding moral consideration, reflection or decision? This course aims to make progress with this and related questions and in the process complement our other, more formal, courses in moral philosophy. The central question with which this course is concerned is: what is the nature of the understanding someone has when they engage with their moral concerns? These moral concerns are considered to arise in relatively ordinary situations of the kinds presented in life, literature and film. These situations include decisions about what to do; wondering how to live; questions of whether one is under a moral obligation; contemplation of shame or guilt. In this sense, this course is a philosophical examination of various phenomena—moral phenomena—about which philosophical theories are constructed. The main goals will be to focus on the nature of the understanding we have of these phenomena with a view to clarifying which are their essential features and which do not distinguish them.
    [Show full text]
  • The Truth Norm Account of Justification
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Apollo THE TRUTH NORM ACCOUNT OF JUSTIFICATION Alexander Greenberg Trinity Hall University of Cambridge 6th July 2017 This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE TRUTH NORM ACCOUNT OF JUSTIFICATION ABSTRACT This thesis is about the relationship between a belief being justified and it being true. It defends a version of the view that the fundamental point of having a justified belief is to have a true one. The particular version of that view it defends is the claim that belief is subject to a truth norm – i.e. a norm or standard that says that one should believe something if and only if it’s true. It claims that belief being subject to such a truth norm can explain which beliefs count as justified and which do not. After introducing the idea of a truth norm (Ch. 1), the argument of my thesis involves two main stages. Part One of the thesis (Chs. 2-3) contains the first stage, in which I argue that my way of arguing for a truth norm, on the basis of its explanatory role in epistemology, is much more likely to be successful than a more popular way of arguing for a truth norm, on the basis of its explanatory role in the philosophy of mind. Part Two (Chs. 4-7) contains the second stage, in which I argue that the truth norm can indeed explain justification in the way I’ve outlined.
    [Show full text]
  • Tom Carson CV
    1 CURRICULUM VITAE Thomas L. Carson July 2018 PHONE: (773) 508-2729 (Office) E-MAIL [email protected] EDUCATION: B.A. Saint Olaf College, 1972 M.A. Brown University, 1975 Ph.D. Brown University, 1977 PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT: Professor of Philosophy, Loyola University/Chicago, 1994- Present (Associate Professor, 1985- 1994). Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1977-1985. Visiting Lecturer, Department of Philosophy, UCLA, Spring and Summer Quarters, 1976. PUBLICATIONS: AUTHORED BOOKS: The Status of Morality, (Reidel, Philosophical Studies Series in Philosophy, 1984, xxiii + 203 pages). Value and the Good Life, (University of Notre Dame Press, 2000, ix + 328 pages). Pages 222-239 and 304-305 are reprinted as “Rationality and Full Information,” in Ethical Theory: An Anthology, Second edition, Russ Shafer-Landau, Wiley Blackwell. 2013, pp 277-285. Lying and Deception: Theory and Practice, (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2010, xix + 280 pages) (Paperback Edition with corrections, 2012) Lincoln’s Ethics, (Cambridge University Press, 2015, xxvii + 427 pages). ANTHOLOGIES: Morality and the Good Life, (Anthology co-edited with Paul Moser), (Oxford University Press: 1997, vi + 528 pages). Moral Relativism ,(Anthology co-edited with Paul Moser), (Oxford University Press, 2001, ix + 337 pages). PAPERS PUBLISHED IN JOURNALS: 1. "Strawson on Other Minds," The Undergraduate Journal of Philosophy, Volume IV, numbers 1 & 2, May 1972, pp. 59-67. 2 2. "Happiness and Contentment: A Reply to Benditt," The Personalist, Volume 59, Number 1, January 1978, pp. 101-107. 3. "Happiness and the Good Life," Southwestern Journal of Philosophy, Volume IX, Number 3, November 1978, pp. 73-88. 4. "Happiness and the Good Life: A Reply to Mele," Southwestern Journal of Philosophy, Volume X, Number 2, Summer 1979, pp.
    [Show full text]