The Deontological Conception of Epistemic Justification

W. Alston
{"title":"The Deontological Conception of Epistemic Justification","authors":"W. Alston","doi":"10.2307/2214077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The terms, 'justified', 'justification', and their cognates are most naturally understood in what we may term a \"deontological\" way, as having to do with obligation, permission, requirement, blame, and the like. We may think of requirement, prohibition, and permission as the basic deontological terms, with obligation, and duty as species of requirement, and with responsibility, blameworthiness, reproach, praiseworthiness, merit, being in the clear, etc. as normative conse","PeriodicalId":104597,"journal":{"name":"Arguing About Knowledge","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"211","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arguing About Knowledge","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/2214077","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 211

Abstract

The terms, 'justified', 'justification', and their cognates are most naturally understood in what we may term a "deontological" way, as having to do with obligation, permission, requirement, blame, and the like. We may think of requirement, prohibition, and permission as the basic deontological terms, with obligation, and duty as species of requirement, and with responsibility, blameworthiness, reproach, praiseworthiness, merit, being in the clear, etc. as normative conse
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
认识论辩护的义务论概念
"被证明","证明"和它们的同音词,最自然的理解是,我们可以用"义务论"的方式,把它们理解为与义务,许可,要求,责备等等有关。我们可以把要求、禁止和允许看作基本的义务论术语,把义务和义务看作要求的种类,而把责任、责备、责备、赞扬、功绩、清白等看作规范意义
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Why (Wittgensteinian) Contextualism is Not Relativism 1 Human Knowledge and the Infinite Regress of Reasons* Meditation One The Deontological Conception of Epistemic Justification "Appear," "Take," and "Evident"
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1