Abstract
Abstract Timothy Williamson (in ‘Justifications, excuses, and sceptical scenarios’) distinguishes three kinds of norm for belief, which he calls ‘primary’, ‘secondary’ and ‘tertiary’. He argues that a belief is justified if it satisfies the primary norm and excused if it satisfies only the tertiary norm. The argument turns on cases of intuitively unjustified belief in which the tertiary norm is satisfied, on Williamson’s rough-and-ready statement of that norm. I argue that, once we state the tertiary norm more carefully, it is clear that it is not satisfied in these cases. So we need some other reason to think that the tertiary norm is not justifying.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
