Is virtue all we need? Virtue epistemology is the theory that all of the things we believe are done so through an ethical process. They play an important role, in that our own personal experiences and intellectual facets are what drive this process. The fundamental idea of virtue epistemology is that knowledge is a form of a more general phenomenon, namely success through abilities. Which is turn means: knowledge is a cognitive achievement through cognitive abilities (perception, memory, experience, etc.). Knowledge doesn’t need to be anything beyond a justified true belief.
Almost all epistemologists, since Edmund Gettier’s 1963 article, have agreed that he disproved the justified-true-belief conception of knowledge. He proposed two examples
…show more content…
This theory entails merging two theories of knowledge: virtue epistemology and anti-luck epistemology. A key premise in Pritchard’s theory incorporates those two separate epistemic conditions that which are specifically designed to accommodate the two master intuitions about knowledge. He makes a case that cognitive achievements are compatible with knowledge which undermines the principle of environmental luck, the same luck that is widely thought to threaten knowledge in instances such as the barn façade case that Ginet …show more content…
This instance then leads him to form the presupposed belief that what he sees is indeed a barn. Henry is correct in that his belief is true. Because he happens to be driving through the country, and an individual would not normally expect that some object in the distance that seems to be a barn while cruising through the country would be anything other than exactly what it appears to be. Most would agree that Henry is justified in his belief. Therefore, Henry has a justified true belief that what he sees is a barn. However, it is then revealed that the countryside in which Henry found the barn is scattered with façades of barns, which in simple terms are constructions that are meant to look like barns from a certain perspective (i.e., Henry’s), but are not genuinely barns. In actuality, the barn that Henry did happen to see was the only actual barn in the area, and it is by sheer coincidental luck that Henry happened to form his belief about that particular figure he perceived in the distance. The point of this example is to show the instance I previously stated above of the concept where some information is intended to mislead but just so happened to reveal its true
As we delve deeper into the Philosophical understanding of William Clifford and Blaise Pascal we gain a new understanding of evidentialism and non-evidentialism. Having studied both Pascal and Clifford I lean more with Pascal and his thoughts and teachings that you do not need to have evidence to believe in a higher power. This paper will continue to give more examples of Pascals teachings of non-evidentialism and why I agree with them.
First, an epistemic virtue is a character trait that is desirable. It is an acquired human excellence that includes a characteristic emotion disposition and reliable success at bringing about the end of the acts motivated by the emotion in question (Zagzebski, 81). To have epistemic virtue one must have concern for of be governed by the concern for the truth. Zagzebski goes on to list other forms of epistemic virtues, such as; compassion, and fairness. In regards to this text, Zagzebski is focused on intellectual virtues. These virtues are a component of emotion which depends on the love of truth or epistemic conscientiousness. Each of these virtues leads to acquiring true beliefs which are motivated by the emotion characteristic of virtue. Another virtue that is an acquired trait is
Regardless of the disagreement between both schools of philosophy that Rene Descartes and David Hume founded, Descartes’s rationalism and Hume’s empiricism set the tone for skepticism regarding knowledge. Rene Descartes rationalism served to form a solid foundation for true knowledge. Although Descartes reaches an illogical conclusion, his rationalism was meant to solve life’s problem by trusting and using the mind. David Hume’s empiricism serves to be the true blueprint on how humans experience the mind. Hume’s empiricism shows that the world only observes the world through their own sense and that there are no a priori truths. For that reason it became clearer that David Hume’s empiricism explains and demonstrates that it is the better way
(1) Kelly, Thomas (2005). “The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement.” Oxford Studies in Epistemology. Eds. Tamar Szabo Gendler and John Hawthorne. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pg.1 – 36.
In this essay I will consider the objections to Virtue Ethics (VE) raised by Robert Louden in his article entitled On Some Vices of Virtue Ethics which was published in 1984. It is important to note at the outset of this essay that it was not until 1991 that the v-rules came up in literature. So Louden is assuming throughout his article that the only action guidance that VE can give is “Do what the virtuous agent would do in the circumstances.” I will be addressing Louden’s objections with the benefit of knowing about the v-rules. First of all, let us discuss what VE is. VE is a normative ethical theory that emphasises the virtues or moral character, thus it focuses on the moral agent. It differs from Deontology which emphasises duties or rules, and Utilitarianism which emphasises the consequences of our actions.
...finition is not guaranteed to fail,” we must understand that saying a definition is not guaranteed to fail is different from saying it satisfies the criteria for always working. Given a situation where the agent utilizes double luck to acquire knowledge when a virtue-based act replaces justification makes us dissect the aspect of arrival. If the agent arrived to the truth and the motivation for doing so was not virtuous, then the same double-luck example could occur, the truth could be arrived and the knowledge acquired could not be good true knowledge. This is because the component of arrival does not entail the virtue. Therefore, there is no truth involved, but just luck. In this account her definition seems incomplete. If the truth of knowledge is virtue-based and all people are not virtuous agents, then how to we account for the knowledge of the non-virtuous?
The virtue ethics approach differs with other frameworks in that; it is not an ethical theory in the same way that Utilitarianism or Kantianism are, It is not so much a guide for moral decision-making, more a description of the moral life. Theories such as Utilitarianism and Kantianism address the question “How should I act?” – Virtue Theory addresses the questions “How should I live my life?”, and “What kind of person should I be?”It is interested in the whole person, not just their actions.
Knowledge has been defined as a justified true belief, but Gettier says that this is not sufficient for the definition of knowledge. Is the well-known definition of knowledge compromised by this claim by Gettier? The Gettier cases do not undermine the definition of knowledge. A response to the Gettier problem is infallibilism, which states that in order for my belief to be certain, it must be impossible for me to have made a mistake.
I shall also expound Ayer's theory of knowledge, as related in his book. I will show this theory to contain logical errors, making his modified version of the principle flawed from a second angle.
Epistemology is also known as the theory of knowledge. This is a branch of philosophy that deals with questions about knowledge. Epistemologists main concern or topic of interest are questions on the nature of knowledge and rational belief. There are many views that could be discussed. In this paper we will discuss a view called the brain-in-a-vat argument for external world skepticism.
Knowledge can be achieved either through the justification of a true belief or for the substantive externalist, through a “natural or law like connection between the truth of what is believed and the person’s belief” (P.135). Suppose a man named George was implanted with a chip at birth, which causes him to utter the time in a rare Russian dialect. His girlfriend Irina, who happens to speak the same Russian dialect, realizes that every time she taps his shoulder, he tells her the time and he is always right. She knows that he is right because she checks her watch. Because she thinks this is cute, she never tells him what it is that he is saying. One day, Irina’s watch breaks but instead of getting it fixed, she just taps George on the shoulder whenever she needs to ask for the time.
Some of the first major philosophical works that I read were Descartes’ Meditations. In his first Meditation, Descartes writes about the idea of skepticism. This is when I was exposed to the topic of skepticism and I found myself interested in the idea right from the start. Skepticism is one of the most popular topics in epistemology. It is also not a topic that only appeals to philosophers. Skepticism is a topic that draws many people’s attention because it is an idea that rocks the cores of many of the beliefs that are closest to us. After all, some of the concepts that follow from the idea of skepticism are ones such as we might not actually have any knowledge of the world or the world, as we know it, might not actually be real. Skeptical scenarios prove to be both intriguing and intimidating. Responses to skepticism usually turn out to be satisfying in some ways but carry unwanted baggage in other ways. Overall, skepticism is a topic that much thought has been dedicated to and one that has led to many philosophical developments. In this paper, I will touch upon
Virtue theory is the best ethical theory because it emphasizes the morality of an individual in which their act is upon pure goodness and presents as a model to motivate others. Aristotle was a classical proponent of virtue theory who illustrates the development habitual acts out of moral goodness. Plato renders a brief list of cardinal virtues consisting of wisdom, temperance, courage, and justice. This ethical theory prominently contradicts and links to other theories that personifies the ideal being. However, virtue theorists differ from their own expression of these qualities yet it sets a tone that reflects on the desire to express kindness toward others.
Gettier undermines the traditional understanding of knowledge by showing that a person can make an apparently proper inference from a belief one is justified in holding, but which is false. He proves that we can arrive at a justified true belief, but the truth of which is unrelated to the premises that it was inferred from. It is “possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is in fact false”. In his first example Gettier shows that one can infer a true statement from a false proposition. To briefly outline the case, Smith has strong evidence...
In this paper, I offer a solution to the Gettier problem by adding a fourth condition to the justified true belief analysis of knowledge. First though, a brief review. Traditionally, knowledge had been accounted for with the justified true belief analysis. To know something, three conditions had to be met: first, you had to have a belief; second, the belief had to be justified; third, this justified belief had to be true. So a justified true belief counts as knowledge. Gettier however showed this analysis to be inadequate as one can have a justified true belief that no one would want to count as knowledge.