Borderline cases and permissibility

The paper explores the idea that when a proposition p is borderline, p is permissible: we can assert p, deny p or suspend judgement about p for all we know, nothing mandates one of these attitudes. The vagueness of p leaves open what we have to think of p. Recognition that p is borderline amounts to be tolerant toward any of three following attitudes on p: 1) hesitant acceptance of p (positive view); 2) hesitant denial of p (negative view); 3) agnosticism about p (agnostic view). Let’s say that p is permissible when it is recognised that it is borderline. Permissibility is thus an attitudinal notion, though it is linked to the status of being borderline, it is not just the notion of borderliness but, rather, our characteristic attitudes to towards three possible dispositions towards borderline propositions i.e. denial, acceptance and suspension of judgment. When p is borderline, we consider permissible having any of the three latter attitudes towards p. In the paper I scrutinize two main readings of permissibility. According to the first one the excusatory conception the tolerant attitude characteristic of permissibility is connected to the absence of epistemic blameworthiness. Whoever takes a view in borderline cases is not blameworthy of having overlooked some evidence since the fact is evidence-transcendent. Whoever decides to be agnostic is excused in the sense that, being inescapably ignorant of the fact of the matter, she is exculpated in forming any relevant belief because of the impossibility for her to get any further information there is no further evidence she could acquire to take a view for, if she has not formed any belief, there is nothing more she can do to unlock her suspension of judgement. This reading assumes that there is no possibility of having knowledge in the borderline area and that, a fortiori, our judgements in borderline area are not knowledgeable. Whether or not there is there is actually a fact of the matter about p, knowledge whether p, when p borderline, is foreclosed to us. But if this is so, then why should I assert or deny that