metajustifications

Metajustifications refer to the reasons or grounds for holding a particular belief or justifying a particular action, when those reasons themselves are subject to justification. In essence, they are justifications for justifications. This concept arises in various philosophical and ethical discussions, particularly when examining the foundations of knowledge, moral principles, or rational decision-making.

For example, if someone believes that scientific evidence is the only valid basis for knowledge, the metajustification for this belief would be the reason why they accept scientific evidence as the ultimate arbiter of truth. This might involve arguments about the reliability of the scientific method, its historical successes, or its inherent objectivity. Without such metajustifications, the initial justification (belief in scientific evidence) would lack a deeper foundation and could be seen as arbitrary.

The concept of metajustifications highlights the recursive nature of reasoning. It pushes inquiry further back, asking not just "why do you believe X?" but "why do you believe that reason Y is a good reason to believe X?". This process is crucial for understanding the robustness of our beliefs and actions, and for engaging in critical self-reflection. It is a key element in discussions about epistemology, metaethics, and the justification of norms.