Abstract
According to the view Rik Peels defends in Responsible Belief (2017), one is responsible for believing something only if that belief was the result of choices one made voluntarily, and for which one may be held responsible. Here, I argue against this voluntarist account of doxastic responsibility and in favor of the rationalist position that a person is responsible for her beliefs insofar as they are under the influence of her reason. In particular, I argue that the latter yields a more plausible account of the conditions under which ignorance may serve as an excuse for wrongdoing.
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 33-51 |
Number of pages | 19 |
Journal | Journal of Philosophical Research |
Volume | 44 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Jan 1 2019 |
Keywords
- Answerability
- Mental agency
- Responsibility for belief
- Rik Peels
- Voluntarism
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Philosophy