Permission to believe is not permission to believe at will

Abstract According to doxastic involuntarism, we cannot believe at will. In this paper, I argue that permissivism, the view that, times, there is more than one way respond rationally a given body of evidence, consistent with involuntarism. Rober (Mind 128(511):837–859, 2019a, Philos Phenom Res 1–17, 2019b) argues since permissive situations are possible, cognitively healthy agents can However, Roeber (Philos fails distinguish between two different arguments for voluntarism, both which be shown fail by proper attention accounts permissivism. considers generic treatment but key premises in depend on different, particular notions Attending distinction single-agent and inter-subjective versions permissivism reveals inference from voluntarism unwarranted.