Just like we reason and deliberate about what to believe and what to do, we also deliberate about what questions to raise. This phenomenon, which I call "erotetic deliberation", has been neglected in normative philosophy. This paper aims to close this gap by arguing for two main claims: the first is that erotetic deliberation is a distinctive type of deliberation, that is, it cannot be reduced to or understood solely in terms of doxastic or practical deliberation. The second claim is that erotetic deliberation is sensitive to both practical and epistemic considerations. The dual normativity of erotetic deliberation is key to making sense of two under-appreciated social phenomena involving questions: how to identify trustworthy or untrustworthy questioners; and what it is for a marginalized group of individuals to be ethically wronged in their capacity as questioners.
Michele Palmira is a Ramón y Cajal Fellow in the Department of Logic and Theoretical Philosophy of the Complutense of Madrid. Palmira is the author of articles on disagreement, higher-order evidence, inquiry, and first-person thought. His latest book is titled The Rational Inquirer (Oxford University Press, 2025).
Die Videoaufzeichnung des Vortrags finden Sie hier.