Abstract

This paper argues for granular permissivism, roughly the view that evidence is sometimes permissive between doxastic attitudes at different levels of grain. The argument identifies three sources of rational slack between granularly differing doxastic states: doxastic tidiness, safety, and evidential responsiveness. After arguing for granular permissivism and contrasting it with a more familiar, Jamesian form of permissivism, I show how granular permissivism offers an escape from some arguments against permissivism. I conclude by drawing out implications from granular permissivism for questions about the value of rationality and rational constraints on deference.