More on justification and Moore's paradox
Suppose that I am justified in believing (Om). Then I am justified in believing its first conjunct. By (EP) I am justified in believing that I believe that p. Since I am also justified in believing the second conjunct, I am justified in believing that I do not believe that p. Williams claimed that 'this is impossible, because anything that justifies me in believing that something is the case renders me unjustified in believing that it is not the case' (Williams 2009 )} In a response to Williams, I argued that (EP) is false. Williams concedes this objection, and in Williams (2009) he seeks to offer a variant on his justificationist solution to Moore's paradox that does not rest upon (EP). Consider this instance of (Om).