On Epistemic Responsibility for Undesirable Beliefs

Responsibility for beliefs is a heavily debated topic within epistemology. The received view is that we have limited control over the formation of beliefs, but control nonetheless. As in the moral case, if we have control over our beliefs, then we have some responsibility for our beliefs. However, many of our beliefs are understood to not be within our direct control and are ones that we cannot be said to be responsible for or blameworthy for holding. Rarely, however, do discussions of epistemic blameworthiness or blamelessness include so-called undesirable beliefs, such as racist beliefs. In this paper, I explore the possibility that there may be knowers who are epistemically blameless for holding racist beliefs precisely because they have limited doxastic control. First, I consider Nikolaj Nottelmann’s account of blameworthy belief, including his discussion of what makes a belief undesirable. I then consider the case of two different White men who hold similar racists beliefs. I argue that the social dimension of knowledge and the reality of socially constructed ignorance, like White ignorance, can affect the epistemic control we have over our beliefs and can make some people epistemologically blameless for holding certain undesirable beliefs. Finally, I argue that to be epistemically blameless for holding an undesirable belief does not mean we are blameless simpliciter and that there remain consequences for holding an undesirable belief.