| dc.contributor.author | Sliwa, Pauline A. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2017-01-06T00:09:11Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2017-01-06T00:09:11Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2012-03 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0031-8116 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1573-0883 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/106221 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Moral testimony has been getting a bad name in the recent literature. It has been argued that while testimony is a perfectly fine source for nonmoral belief, there’s something wrong with basing one’s moral beliefs on it. This paper argues that the bad name is undeserved: Moral testimony isn’t any more problematic than nonmoral testimony. | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Springer Netherlands | en_US |
| dc.relation.isversionof | http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11098-012-9887-6 | en_US |
| dc.rights | Article is made available in accordance with the publisher's policy and may be subject to US copyright law. Please refer to the publisher's site for terms of use. | en_US |
| dc.source | Springer Netherlands | en_US |
| dc.title | In defense of moral testimony | en_US |
| dc.type | Article | en_US |
| dc.identifier.citation | Sliwa, Paulina. “In Defense of Moral Testimony.” Philosophical Studies 158, no. 2 (March 2012): 175–195. doi:10.1007/s11098-012-9887-6. | en_US |
| dc.contributor.department | Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy | en_US |
| dc.contributor.mitauthor | Sliwa, Pauline A. | |
| dc.relation.journal | Philosophical Studies | en_US |
| dc.eprint.version | Author's final manuscript | en_US |
| dc.type.uri | http://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticle | en_US |
| eprint.status | http://purl.org/eprint/status/PeerReviewed | en_US |
| dc.date.updated | 2016-08-18T15:20:12Z | |
| dc.language.rfc3066 | en | |
| dc.rights.holder | Springer Science+Business Media B.V. | |
| dspace.orderedauthors | Sliwa, Paulina | en_US |
| dspace.embargo.terms | N | en |
| mit.license | PUBLISHER_POLICY | en_US |
