Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-fmrbl Total loading time: 0.33 Render date: 2022-09-25T05:42:24.758Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Article contents

NO SAFE HAVEN FOR THE VIRTUOUS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2018

Abstract

In order to deal with the problem caused by environmental luck some proponents of robust virtue epistemology have attempted to argue that in virtue of satisfying the ability condition one will satisfy the safety condition. Call this idea the entailment thesis. In this paper it will be argued that the arguments that have been laid down for the entailment thesis entail a wrong kind of safety condition, one that we do not have in mind when we require our beliefs to be safe from error in order for them to be knowledge.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018

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

Ball, B. 2016. ‘Knowledge, Safety, and Questions.’ Unisinos Journal of Philosophy, 17: 5862.Google Scholar
Bird, A. 2007. ‘Justified Judging.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 74: 81110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogardus, T. 2014. ‘Knowledge Under Threat.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 88: 289313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, J. A. 2016. ‘Robust Virtue Epistemology As Anti-Luck Epistemology: A New Solution.’ Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 97: 140–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffman, E. J. 2007. ‘Thinking About Luck.’ Synthese, 158: 385–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comesaña, J. 2005. ‘Unsafe Knowledge.’ Synthese, 146: 395404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dretske, F. 1971. ‘Conclusive Reasons.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 49: 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaultier, B. 2014. ‘Achievements, Safety and Environmental Epistemic Luck.’ Dialectica, 68: 477–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greco, J. 2010. Achieving Knowledge: A Virtue Theoretic Account of Epistemic Normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greco, J. 2012. ‘A (Different) Virtue Epistemology.Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 85: 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greco, J. 2016. ‘Knowledge, Virtue, and Safety.’ In Fernández Vargas, M. A. (ed.), Performance Epistemology – Foundations and Applications, pp. 5161. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawthorne, J. and Lasonen-Aarnio, M. 2009. ‘Knowledge and Objective Chance.’ In Greenough, P. and Pritchard, D. (eds), Williamson on Knowledge, pp. 92108. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirvelä, J. 2017a. ‘Global Safety: How to Deal with Necessary Truths.’ Synthese. doi: 10.1007/s11229-017-1511-z.Google Scholar
Hirvelä, J. 2017b. ‘Is it Safe to Disagree?Ratio, 30: 305–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ichikawa, J. 2014. ‘Justification is Potential Knowledge.’ Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 44: 184206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelp, C. 2013. ‘Knowledge: The Safe-Apt View.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 91: 265–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lackey, J. 2007. ‘Why We Don't Deserve Credit for Everything We Know.’ Synthese, 158: 345–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lackey, J. 2008. ‘What Luck Is Not.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 86: 255–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lackey, J. 2009. ‘Knowledge and Credit.’ Philosophical Studies, 142: 2742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasonen-Aarnio, M. 2008. ‘Single Premise Deduction and Risk.’ Philosophical Studies, 141: 157–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littlejohn, C. 2014. ‘Fake Barns and False Dilemmas.’ Episteme, 11: 369–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luper, S. 2003. ‘Indiscernibility Skepticism.’ In Luper, S. (ed.), The Skeptics: Contemporary Essays, pp. 183202. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Miracchi, L. 2015. ‘Competence to Know.’ Philosophical Studies, 172: 2956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neta, R. and Rohrbaugh, G. 2004. ‘Luminosity and the Safety of Knowledge.’ Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 85: 396406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nozick, R. 1981. Philosophical Explanations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. 2005. Epistemic Luck. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, D. 2007. ‘Anti-Luck Epistemology.’ Synthese, 158: 277–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, D. 2010. ‘Knowledge and Understanding.’ In Pritchard, D., Millar, A. and Haddock, A. (eds), The Nature and Value of Knowledge, pp. 588. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, D. 2012. ‘Anti-Luck Virtue Epistemology.’ Journal of Philosophy, 109: 247–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riggs, W. 2007. ‘Why Epistemologists are so Down on Their Luck.’ Synthese, 158: 329–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sainsbury, R. 1997. ‘Easy Possibilities.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 57: 907–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, E. 1999. ‘How to Defeat Opposition to Moore.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 13: 141–54.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. 2004. ‘Replies.’ In Greco, J. (ed.), Ernest Sosa and his Critics, pp. 275325. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. 2007. A Virtue Epistemology: Apt Belief and Reflective Knowledge: Volume I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, E. 2009. Reflective Knowledge: Apt Belief and Reflective Knowledge, Volume II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, E. 2015. Judgment and Agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turri, J. 2011. ‘Manifest Failure: The Gettier Problem Solved.’ Philosophers Imprint, 11: 111.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. 2000. Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. 2009. ‘Reply to John Hawthorne and Maria Lasonen-Aarnio.’ In Greenough, P. and Pritchard, D. (eds), Williamson on Knowledge, pp. 313–29. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zagzebski, L. 1996. Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zagzebski, L. 2003. ‘The Search for the Source of Epistemic Good.’ Metaphilosophy, 34: 1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

NO SAFE HAVEN FOR THE VIRTUOUS
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

NO SAFE HAVEN FOR THE VIRTUOUS
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

NO SAFE HAVEN FOR THE VIRTUOUS
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *