Abstract

According to KK Compatibilism, the unassertability in the high-stakes contextualist cases can be explained in terms of the subjects lack of higher-order knowledge: although, strictly speaking, all that is needed for proper action—assertion included—is first-order knowledge, when the stakes are high, we tend to find people who act without knowing that they meet the condition for proper action blameworthy for so doing. This chapter argues that (1) the view misidentifies the epistemic deficit that is explanatorily salient in contextualist cases, in that the absence of second-order knowledge is not a difference maker, and (2) on closer look, the account requires normative finessing for extensional adequacy.