Normative Indeterminacy in the Epistemic Domain

Abstract

This chapter investigates the relationship between epistemic dilemmas and default logic. We have three main goals. First, we develop a default logic that can tolerate rational indeterminacy, i.e., according to this account, when one is subject to conflicting rational requirements, it is indeterminate which doxastic attitude one is permitted or required to have. Second, we show that this view has some important advantages over its competitors, i.e., default logics that tolerate genuine conflicts between the requirements of rationality, and default logics that permit agents to satisfy whichever conflicting requirement they choose. Third, we compare dilemmas that arise in the epistemic domain with dilemmas that arise in the moral domain, and conclude by highlighting some important differences between the two.