Aristotle’s Arguments in Metaphysics Γ as Prudential Reasons for Non-Contradiction

One of the strongest challenges to Aristotle’s defence of the Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC) in Metaphysics Γ comes from contemporary dialetheists, who accept some, but not all, contradictions. In this paper, I reconsider Aristotle’s refutations from the perspective of contemporary work in the epistemology of logic to argue that we can read them as providing prudential reasons for belief in PNC. This reading of the refutations reveals how they can provide reasons that not only are compelling for contemporary dialetheists but also would be missed by evidentialist positions in the epistemology of logic.