Who Cares What You Accurately Believe?

This is a critical discussion of the accuracy-first approach to epistemic norms. If you think of accuracy (gradational or categorical) as the fundamental epistemic good and think of epistemic goods as things that call for promotion, you might think that we should use broadly consequentialist reasoning to determine which norms govern partial and full belief. We will look at consequentialist arguments for probabilism and the normative Lockean view. I shall argue that the consequentialist framework isn't nearly as promising as it might first appear.