File(s) not publicly available
Epistemic ought is a commensurable ought
I argue that the claim that epistemic ought is incommensurable is self-defeating. My argument, however, depends on the truth of the premise that there can be not only epistemic reasons for belief, but also non-epistemic (e.g., moral) reasons for belief. So I also provide some support for that claim.
History
Publication status
- Published
Journal
European Journal of PhilosophyISSN
0966-8373Publisher
Blackwell PublishingExternal DOI
Issue
4Volume
22Page range
529-539Department affiliated with
- Philosophy Publications
Full text available
- No
Peer reviewed?
- Yes