Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-5kfdg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-28T17:46:10.633Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evolution and the Normativity of Epistemic Reasons

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Sharon Street
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Creatures inveterately wrong in their inductions have a pathetic but praiseworthy tendency to die before reproducing their kind.- Quine (1969)

We think that some facts - for example, the fact that someone is suffering, or the fact that all previously encountered tigers were carnivorous – supply us with normative reasons for action and belief. The former fact, we think, is a reason to help the suffering person; the latter fact is a reason to believe that the next tiger we see will also be carnivorous. But how is the reason-giving status of such facts best understood? In particular, is it best understood as ultimately “conferred” upon these facts by our own evaluative attitudes, or do at least some facts possess normative reason-giving status in a way that is robustly independent of our attitudes? This is the modern, secular version of Plato's “Euthyphro question” - couched here in the philosophically useful, though not essential, language of normative reasons.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supplementary Volume , Volume 35: Belief and Agency , 2009 , pp. 213 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2009

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Boghossian, Paul. 2003. “The Normativity of Content” Philosophical Issues 13: 31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifford, William K. 1877. “The Ethics of Belief.” In his Lectures and Essays, vol. 2, 339-63. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jonathan L. 1989. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Induction and Probability, chap. 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Cuneo, Terence. 2007. The Normative Web: An Argument for Moral Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbard, Allan. 1999. “Morality as Consistency in Living: Korsgaard's Kantian Lectures,” Ethics 110: 140-64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horwich, Paul. 1982. Probability and Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine. 1996. The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin. 1993. Warrant and Proper Function,chap. 12. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. 1969. “Natural Kinds.” In Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, 126. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Railton, Peter. 1997. “On the Hypothetical and Non-Hypothetical in Reasoning about Belief and Action.” In Ethics and Practical Reason, ed. Cullity, Garrett and Gaut, Berys, 53–80. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Shah, Nishi. 2003. “How Truth Governs Belief” Philosophical Review 112: 447-82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, Nishi. 2006. “A New Argument for Evidentialism” Philosophical Quarterly 56: 481-98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stich, Stephen. 1990. The Fragmentation of Reason, chap. 3. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Street, Sharon. 2006. “A Darwinian Dilemma for Realist Theories of Value.” Philosophical Studies 127 (1): 109-66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Street, Sharon. 2008a. “Constructivism about Reasons.” In Oxford Studies in Metaethics, vol. 3, ed. Shafer-Landau, Russ, 207-45. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Street, Sharon. 2008b. “Reply to Copp: Naturalism, Normativity, and the Varieties of Realism Worth Worrying About” Philosophical Issues (a supplement to Noûs), vol. 18 on “Interdisciplinary Core Philosophy,” ed. Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter, 207-28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Street, Sharon. 2009. “In Defense of Future Tuesday Indifference: Ideally Coherent Eccentrics and the Contingency of What Matters” Philosophical Issues(a supplement to Noûs), vol. 19 on “Metaethics,” ed. Sosa, Ernest, 273-98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Street, Sharon. 2010. “What Is Constructivism in Ethics and Metaethics?” Philosophy Compass 5: 363-84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Street, Sharon. 2011. “Mind-Independence without the Mystery: Why Quasi-Realists Can't Have It Both Ways.” In Oxford Studies in Metaethics, vol. 6, ed. Shafer-Landau, Russ. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Street, Sharon.Unpublished manuscript. “Objectivity and Truth: You'd Better Rethink It.“Google Scholar
Wedgwood, Ralph. 2002. “The Aim of Belief” Philosophical Perspectives 16: 267-97.Google Scholar