Still No Guidance

In a recent article in this journal, A sbjørn S teglich‐ P etersen 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” ( S teglich‐ P etersen, 2013, p. 279). If these claims could be substantiated, the no‐guidance argument would lose all interest. But S teglich‐ P etersen'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

Argument (complex analysis) · Epistemology · Law and economics · Norm (philosophy) · Sociology · Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics · Free Will and Agency · Medicine · Philosophy · Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment

• Blind rule-following and the regress of motivations

  Zachary Mitchell Swindlehurst•Inquiry•2023

  Añadir item

• Against Content Normativity

  Kathrin Glüer, Åsa Wikforss•Mind•2009

  Añadir item

• The No Guidance Argument

  Open Access•Asbjørn Steglich-Petersen, Asbjørn Steglich‐petersen•Theoria•2013

  Añadir item