Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Theoretical analysis reveals epistemic accountability explains intuition against harmful beliefs in social interactions, indicating epistemic blame undermines the motivation to moralize belief.
Are beliefs subject to moral norms? Doxastic moralists argue that we can morally wrong others by what we believe about them – say, by holding racially prejudiced beliefs. Opponents argue that we cannot morally wrong others by holding beliefs: it only seems as if beliefs can wrong others because beliefs are connected to wrongful inquiry, attention, or assertion. Such debunking explanations face a problem: they cannot explain moralist intuitions concerning our accountability practices when there are no blameworthy actions in belief’s vicinity. I propose that this problem can be solved by appealing to epistemic accountability practices, such as epistemic blame and epistemic atonement. A belief can be epistemically blameworthy even if there was no blameworthy action in its vicinity; and this calls for practices of redress that resemble moral practices. In this way, endorsing our epistemic sociality – i.e., acknowledging how we hold each other epistemically accountable for beliefs – undermines a main motivation for moralizing beliefs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sebastian Schmidt (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: