With "justification"

This dissertation has two parts. In Part I, I argue that the meaning of “justified” cannot safely be neglected by epistemologists who claim to be theorising about “__ justification”. To say that someone is justified is to say that they are justified in respect of something they are doing or have done. To say that something they are doing or have done is justified is to say that they are justified in respect of their doing it, or having done it. For this reason, situations in which an act/state is justified are always situations in which a person is justified. I show that this undermines the only alternative to the much-discussed excuse response to the New Evil Demon thought experiment. In Part II, I argue that justifications, like excuses, function as exceptions. The net result is a defense of the possibility of justified mistakes of fact.