Accuracy, Ratification, and the Scope of Epistemic Consequentialism

Abstract

Joyce focuses on trade-off objections to epistemic consequentialism. Such objections are similar to familiar objections from ethics where an intuitively wrong action (e.g., killing a healthy patient) leads to a net gain in value (e.g., saving five other patients). The objection to the epistemic consequentialist concerns cases where adopting an intuitively wrong belief leads to a net gain in epistemic value. Joyce defends the epistemic consequentialist against such objections by denying that his version of epistemic utility theory is properly thought of as a species of epistemic consequentialism, and given this, does not condone the problematic trade-offs. His argument turns on distinguishing between treating degrees of belief as final ends and treating them as a basis for estimation.