Consistency, Obligations, and Accuracy-Dominance Vindications
Vindicating the claim that agents ought to be consistent has proved to be a difficult task. Recently, some have argued that we can use accuracy-dominance arguments to vindicate the normativity of such requirements. But what do these arguments prove, exactly? In this paper, I argue that we can make...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Philosophie.ch
2020-04-01
|
| Series: | Dialectica |
| Online Access: | https://dialectica.philosophie.ch/dialectica/article/view/8 |
| _version_ | 1797851583686377472 |
|---|---|
| author | Marc-Kevin Daoust |
| author_facet | Marc-Kevin Daoust |
| author_sort | Marc-Kevin Daoust |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description |
Vindicating the claim that agents ought to be consistent has proved to be a difficult task. Recently, some have argued that we can use accuracy-dominance arguments to vindicate the normativity of such requirements. But what do these arguments prove, exactly? In this paper, I argue that we can make a distinction between two theses on the normativity of consistency: the view that one ought to be consistent and the view that one ought to avoid being inconsistent. I argue that accuracy-dominance arguments for consistency support the latter view, but not necessarily the former. I also argue that the distinction between these two theses matters in the debate on the normativity of epistemic rationality. Specifically, the distinction suggests that there are interesting alternatives to vindicating the strong claim that one ought to be consistent.
|
| first_indexed | 2024-04-09T19:19:02Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-6cac3a6d53c445868a3f0efc3b04ffc9 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 0012-2017 1746-8361 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-09T19:19:02Z |
| publishDate | 2020-04-01 |
| publisher | Philosophie.ch |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Dialectica |
| spelling | doaj.art-6cac3a6d53c445868a3f0efc3b04ffc92023-04-05T15:30:19ZengPhilosophie.chDialectica0012-20171746-83612020-04-0174110.48106/dial.v74.i1.07Consistency, Obligations, and Accuracy-Dominance VindicationsMarc-Kevin Daoust Vindicating the claim that agents ought to be consistent has proved to be a difficult task. Recently, some have argued that we can use accuracy-dominance arguments to vindicate the normativity of such requirements. But what do these arguments prove, exactly? In this paper, I argue that we can make a distinction between two theses on the normativity of consistency: the view that one ought to be consistent and the view that one ought to avoid being inconsistent. I argue that accuracy-dominance arguments for consistency support the latter view, but not necessarily the former. I also argue that the distinction between these two theses matters in the debate on the normativity of epistemic rationality. Specifically, the distinction suggests that there are interesting alternatives to vindicating the strong claim that one ought to be consistent. https://dialectica.philosophie.ch/dialectica/article/view/8 |
| spellingShingle | Marc-Kevin Daoust Consistency, Obligations, and Accuracy-Dominance Vindications Dialectica |
| title | Consistency, Obligations, and Accuracy-Dominance Vindications |
| title_full | Consistency, Obligations, and Accuracy-Dominance Vindications |
| title_fullStr | Consistency, Obligations, and Accuracy-Dominance Vindications |
| title_full_unstemmed | Consistency, Obligations, and Accuracy-Dominance Vindications |
| title_short | Consistency, Obligations, and Accuracy-Dominance Vindications |
| title_sort | consistency obligations and accuracy dominance vindications |
| url | https://dialectica.philosophie.ch/dialectica/article/view/8 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT marckevindaoust consistencyobligationsandaccuracydominancevindications |