From Doxastic Blame to Doxastic Shame

There is a philosophical puzzle about blaming people for their attitudes that arises because we lack direct voluntary control over our attitudes. The fact that we lack direct voluntary control over our attitudes suggests that we are not responsible for them. Defenders of blaming people for their beliefs have appealed to various senses in which we are responsible for our beliefs, despite our lacking direct voluntary control over them. In this paper, I pursue a different strategy. I argue that it is something fitting to be ashamed of your beliefs, or, to put this another way, that it is sometimes fitting to feel shame for believing something. I articulate an account of shamefulness, on which the shameful is a species of legitimate expectation violation. By contrast with blameworthiness, shamefulness does not entail responsibility. For this reason, the fittingness of shame for beliefs (i.e. doxastic shame), unlike the fittingness of blame for beliefs (i.e. doxastic blame), is orthogonal to questions of responsibility. Independent of whether we are responsible for our beliefs, doxastic shame can be fitting.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Ergo an Open Access Journal of Philosophy
Published
2024-11-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3998/ergo.6915
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.13

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

From Doxastic Blame to Doxastic Shame

Allan Hazlett
1 citations
Ergo an Open Access Journal of Philosophy
Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
1.13
article

From Doxastic Blame to Doxastic Shame

Allan Hazlett
article en
1 citations

Abstract

There is a philosophical puzzle about blaming people for their attitudes that arises because we lack direct voluntary control over our attitudes. The fact that we lack direct voluntary control over our attitudes suggests that we are not responsible for them. Defenders of blaming people for their beliefs have appealed to various senses in which we are responsible for our beliefs, despite our lacking direct voluntary control over them. In this paper, I pursue a different strategy. I argue that it is something fitting to be ashamed of your beliefs, or, to put this another way, that it is sometimes fitting to feel shame for believing something. I articulate an account of shamefulness, on which the shameful is a species of legitimate expectation violation. By contrast with blameworthiness, shamefulness does not entail responsibility. For this reason, the fittingness of shame for beliefs (i.e. doxastic shame), unlike the fittingness of blame for beliefs (i.e. doxastic blame), is orthogonal to questions of responsibility. Independent of whether we are responsible for our beliefs, doxastic shame can be fitting.

Ergo an Open Access Journal of PhilosophyVol. 11(0)
Washington University in St. Louis (US), University of Johannesburg (ZA)
Washington University in St. Louis, University of Connecticut
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
1.13
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

From Doxastic Blame to Doxastic Shame — Allan Hazlett · Ergo an Open Access Journal of Philosophy (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS