VIOLATING REQUIREMENTS, EXITING FROM REQUIREMENTS, AND THE SCOPE OF RATIONALITY

It is generally agreed that many types of attitudinal incoherence are irrational, but there is controversy about why they are. Some think incoherence is irrational because it violates certain wide‐scope conditional requirements, others (‘narrow‐scopers’) that it violates narrow‐scope conditional requirements. In his paper ‘The Scope of Rational Requirements’, John Brunero has offered a putative counter‐example to narrow‐scope views. But a narrow‐scoper should reject a crucial assumption which Brunero makes, namely, the claim that we always violate conditional narrow‐scope requirements when we do not comply with them. I show how Brunero's objection can be met by denying this claim, and I provide independent arguments in favour of denying it.