Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:37:33.520Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What is reliance?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Facundo M. Alonso
Facundo M. Alonso*
Affiliation:
Yale Law School, 127 Wall Street, New Haven, CT06511, USA Department of Philosophy, Stanford University, Building 90, 450 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA94305-2155, USA
*
*Email: facundo_alonso@yahoo.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article I attempt to provide a conceptual framework for thinking about reliance in a systematic way. I argue that reliance is a cognitive attitude that has a tighter connection to the guidance of our thought and action than ordinary belief does. My main thesis is that reliance has a ‘constitutive aim’: namely, it aims at guiding our thought and action in a way that is sensible from the standpoint of practical or theoretical ends. This helps explain why reliance is, in contrast to belief, typically formed and revised in response to pragmatic considerations.

Keywords

reliancebeliefcognitive guidanceconstitutive aimsensible guidance
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , April 2014 , pp. 163 - 183
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alonso, Facundo. 2009. “Shared Intention, Reliance, and Interpersonal Obligations.” Ethics 119: 444–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alonso, Facundo. ms. Reasons for Reliance. Department of Philosophy, Stanford University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baier, Annette. 1986. “Trust and Antitrust.” Ethics 96: 231–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackburn, Simon. 1998. “Trust, Cooperation and Human Psychology.” In Trust and Governance, edited by Braithwaite, Valerie and Levi, Margaret, 28–45. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Boghossian, Paul. 2003. “The Normativity of Content.” Philosophical Issues 13: 31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratman, Michael. 1999. “Practical Reasoning and Acceptance in a Context.” In Faces of Intention: Selected Essays on Intention and Agency, 15–34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratman, Michael. 2009a. “Intention, Belief, and Instrumental Rationality.” In Reasons for Action, edited by Sobel, David and Wall, Steven, 13–36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratman, Michael. 2009b. “Intention, Belief, Practical, Theoretical.” In Spheres of Reason: New Essays in the Philosophy of Normativity, edited by Robertson, Simon, 29–61. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Jonathan. 1989. “Belief and Acceptance.” Mind 98: 367–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fara, Michael. 2005. “Dispositions and Habituals.” Noûs 39: 43–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, Richard. 1993. Working Without a Net. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbard, Allan. 1990. Wise Choices, Apt Feelings. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Sanford. 2010. Relying on Others. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hieronymi, Pamela. 2006. “Controlling Attitudes.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87: 45–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holton, Richard. 1994. “Deciding to Trust, Coming to Believe.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 72: 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, Mark. 1981. “Rational Acceptance.” Philosophical Studies 40: 129–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, Thomas. 2002. “The Rationality of Belief and Some Other Propositional Attitudes.” Philosophical Studies 110: 163–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine. 1997. “The Normativity of Instrumental Reason.” In Ethics and Practical Reason, edited by Cullity, Garrett and Gaut, Berys, 215–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacCormick, Neil. 1982. “Voluntary Obligations.” In Legal Right and Social Democracy, 190–211. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Owens, David. 2003. “Does Belief Have an Aim?” Philosophical Studies 115: 283–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Railton, Peter. 1994. “Truth, Reason, and the Regulation of Belief.” Philosophical Issues 5: 71–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Railton, Peter. 2003. “On the Hypothetical and Non-Hypothetical in Reasoning about Belief and Action.” In Facts, Values, and Norms, 293–321. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Railton, Peter. 2006. “Normative Guidance.” In Oxford Studies in Metaethics, edited by Shafer-Landau, Russ. Vol. 1, 3–33. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scanlon, Thomas. 1998. What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schwitzgebel, Eric. 2002. “A Phenomenal, Dispositional Account of Belief.” Noûs 36: 249–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott-Kakures, Dion. 2000. “Motivated Believing: Wishful and Unwelcome.” Noûs 34: 348–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, Nishi. 2003. “How Truth Governs Belief.” Philosophical Review 112: 447–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, Nishi, and Velleman, J. David. 2005. “Doxastic Deliberation.” Philosophical Review 114: 497–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Matthew N. 2010. “Reliance.” Noûs 44: 135–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1984. Inquiry. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. “Common Ground.” Linguistic and Philosophy 25: 701–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullmann-Margalit, Edna. 1983. “On Presumption.” Journal of Philosophy 80: 143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas. 1980. The Scientific Image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velleman, J. David. 2000a. “Introduction.” In The Possibility of Practical Reason, 1–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Velleman, J. David. 2000b. “The Guise of the Good.” In The Possibility of Practical Reason, 99–122.Google Scholar
Velleman, J. David. 2000c. “On the Aim of Belief.” In The Possibility of Practical Reason, 244–281.Google Scholar
Velleman, J. David. 2004. “Replies to Discussion on The Possibility of Practical Reason.” Philosophical Studies 121: 277–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, R. Jay. 2001. “Normativity, Commitment, and Instrumental Reason.” Philosophers’ Imprint 1.3: 1–26.Google Scholar
Wedgwood, Ralph. 2002. “The Aim of Belief.” Philosophical Perspectives 16: 267–297.Google Scholar
Williams, Bernard. 1973. “Deciding to Believe.” In Problems of the Self, 136–151. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. 2000. Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, Crispin. 2004. “Warrant for Nothing (And Foundations for Free)?” Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 78: 167–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar