Justin McBrayer

The value problem for knowledge is the problem of explaining why knowledge is cognitively more valuable than mere true belief. If an account of the nature of knowledge is unable to solve the value problem for knowledge, this provides a pro tanto reason to reject that account. Recent literature argues that process reliabilism is unable to solve the value problem because it succumbs to an objection known as the swamping objection. Virtue reliabilism (i.e., agent reliabilism), on the other hand, is able to solve the value problem because it can avoid the swamping objection. I argue that virtue reliabilism escapes the swamping objection only by employing what I call an entailment strategy. Furthermore, since an entailment strategy is open to the process reliabilist (in two different forms), I argue that the process reliabilist is also able to escape the swamping objection and thereby solve the value problem for knowledge.

Does the fact that other people believe something give me a reason to believe it, too? Yes, and this epistemic fact is explained by the principle of common consent. PCC says that if S knows that others believe that P, then this fact gives S a reason to believe that P. Despite the fact that most logic texts file the appeal to the majority under the category of a fallacy, the principle of common consent is true. The principle can be defended by an appeal to the interpretive dilemma, a lesson from the epistemology of disagreement, an analogy to epistemic self-trust, and an inference to the best explanation for a wide range of epistemic data. Typical objections to the principle are unpersuasive and rest on either an infallibilist epistemology or an interpretive mistake.

Introducing Ethics: A Critical Thinking Approach with Readings combines guiding commentary and questions with a rich selection of concise, carefully edited, and accessible readings on ethical theory and contemporary moral issues. This unique introduction shows students how to do philosophy by first analyzing texts--identifying ethical positions and the arguments that support them--and then evaluating the truth of those positions and the soundness of the arguments. In doing so, it provides students with a uniquely engaging introduction to ethics that also hones their critical thinking skills. FEATURES * A unique Unit 1 gives students the conceptual tools to "do" philosophy with coverage of logic, arguments, moral reasoning, and reading and writing philosophy * Extensive coverage of the three main areas of ethics--metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics--addresses issues often ignored by other texts, including ethics vs. science, moral responsibility, moral vs. legal issues, torture, terrorism, and more * Unit and chapter introductions outline major themes and issues and explain why they matter * Reading questions precede the essays and focus students' studying on key points, while discussion questions follow the readings and help students move into the evaluation phase * "Argument Reconstruction Exercises" after each reading provide practice in identifying the premises and conclusions in the essays * An Instructor's Manual with Test Bank on CD is available to adopters * A Companion Website at www.oup.com/us/mcbrayer provides all the material contained on the CD along with student resources.

Internalist, direct realist epistemologies have the conceptual wherewithal to both handle the new evil demon problem and explain how actual perceptual beliefs are justified. Despite this initial plausibility, I argue that direct realist accounts of perceptual justification seem to allow more beliefs to be characterized as justified perceptual beliefs than some philosophers would like. In specific, it seems that it is possible for human agents to have justified perceptual beliefs of a religious nature (e.g. that God is present). In this paper I will examine two contemporary versions of direct realism—that of John Pollock (2005) and that of Peter Markie (2006)—and show that each account is amenable to an explanation of why some religious beliefs are both perceptual and justified. Whether or not this is a virtue or vice of direct realism will depend on one’s religious epistemology.