How to Be an Epistemic Expressivist

Arguments from the practicality of moral judgment are typically taken to be among the more powerful arguments for meta-ethical expressivism. However, analogous arguments seem unpromising in meta-epistemology. Morality is obviously practical in a very direct way, whereas epistemic judgments tell one what to believe, not what to do. It is argued in this chapter that what epistemologists call ‘pragmatic encroachment’ provides the best starting point for an argument from practicality in meta-epistemology. However, the best argument drawing on this idea seems compelling only for judgments about what someone has sufficient reason to believe, not judgments about what there is some reason to believe. But a similar dichotomy can be found in the moral context, and seeing why this does not spell doom there helps in the meta-epistemological context too. The chapter concludes by defending a better strategy for defending epistemic expressivism which relies on a specific conception of non-representational ‘direction of fit’.

The Costs of Epistemic Realism

This chapter considers some neglected costs of epistemic realism. It argues that those responding to the realist’s main argument against epistemic expressivism—the so-called perspective objection—have overestimated the power of that argument, since a central premise of it can actually be used to turn the tables on the realist. More specifically, the premise entails that, unless the realist accepts a far-reaching scepticism, she must do two things. First, she must reject the idea that true belief is a central epistemic goal. Second, she must hold that the diversity of views in discussions about epistemic normativity is a sign of cognitive-behavioural incoherence, if not of widespread irrationality, on the part of epistemologists. Such are the costs of epistemic realism.