Still No Guidance: Reply to Steglich-Petersen
Number of Authors: 2
2015 (English)In: Theoria, ISSN 0040-5825, E-ISSN 1755-2567, Vol. 81, no 3, 272-279 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
In a recent article in this journal, AsbjOrn Steglich-Petersen criticizes an argument we have called the no-guidance argument. He claims that our argument fails because it (1) presupposes a much too narrow understanding of what it takes for a norm to influence behaviour and (2) betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the point of the truth norm (Steglich-Petersen, 2013, p. 279). If these claims could be substantiated, the no-guidance argument would lose all interest. But Steglich-Petersen's attempt at substantiating them fails. The suggested sense in which the truth norm can guide behaviour turns out to be too wide to be recognizable as an intuitive notion of norm guidance. Moreover, it remains unclear how the truth norm could possibly provide an answer to the question whether it - rather than some other, possible norm for belief - is valid.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2015. Vol. 81, no 3, 272-279 p.
truth norm, belief, rule-following
Philosophy, Ethics and Religion
IdentifiersURN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-120180DOI: 10.1111/theo.12057ISI: 000358502600006OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-120180DiVA: diva2:851590