FiltersNEW

Hold ctrl / ⌘ to select more or unselect

Topics

Languages

Traditions

Times (use negative numbers for BCE)

-

Medium:

Recommended use:

Difficulty:


Full text
Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus. Epistemic Authority: A Theory of Trust, Authority, and Autonomy in Belief
2012, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Expand entry

Added by: Chris Blake-Turner, Contributed by: Wayne Riggs

Publisher's Note: In this book Zagzebski gives an extended argument that the self-reflective person is committed to belief on authority. Epistemic authority is compatible with autonomy, but epistemic self-reliance is incoherent. She argues that epistemic and emotional self-trust are rational and inescapable, that consistent self-trust commits us to trust in others, and that among those we are committed to trusting are some whom we ought to treat as epistemic authorities, modeled on the well-known principles of authority of Joseph Raz. These principles apply to authority in the moral and religious domains
Comment : This is a stub entry. Please add your comments to help us expand it
Full text
Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus. Ethical and epistemic egoism and the ideal of autonomy
2007, Episteme 4 (3):252-263.

Expand entry

Added by: Chris Blake-Turner, Contributed by: Wayne Riggs

Abstract: In this paper I distinguish three degrees of epistemic egoism, each of which has an ethical analogue, and I argue that all three are incoherent. Since epistemic autonomy is frequently identified with one of these forms of epistemic egoism, it follows that epistemic autonomy as commonly understood is incoherent. I end with a brief discussion of the idea of moral autonomy and suggest that its component of epistemic autonomy in the realm of the moral is problematic.
Comment : This is a stub entry. Please add your comments to help us expand it
Full text
Zutlevics, T. L.. Markets and the needy: Organ sales or aid?
2001,

Expand entry

Added by: Clotilde Torregrossa, Contributed by: Simon Fokt

Abstract: As organ shortages have become more accute, support for a market in organs has steadily increased. Whilst many have argued for such a market, it is Gerald Dworkin who most persuasively defends its ethics. As Dworkin points out, there are two possibilities here - a futures market and a current market. I follow Dworkin in focusing on a current market in the sale of organs from living donors, as this is generally considered to be the most difficult to justify. One of the most pressing concerns here is that such a market will exploit the poor. I outline this concern and scrutinise Dworkin's and others' rejection of it. Briefly, I argue that the arguments Dworkin employs for allowing the poor to sell their organs fail, and in fact better support an argument for increasing aid to the needy.
Comment : This is a stub entry. Please add your comments to help us expand it
Can’t find it?
Contribute the texts you think should be here and we’ll add them soon!