Abstract

In this paper I demonstrate the need for a plausible theory of direct justification (epistemic justification without propositional evidence) by discussing the pitfalls of skepticism and relativism that await theories dedicated to either of two extremes. I also survey two attempts to navigate between these extremes, and point out shortcomings that leave both of them wanting. I then present my own theory against this background---a theory grounded in a property I call universal sanction. I argue that universal sanction is necessary for direct justification and that it is prima facie good reason for considering a belief directly justified. I go on to show how my theory is useful in accounting for the direct justification of beliefs not considered in more traditional accounts. Finally, as a prelude to further research, I recap the strengths of my theory and relate it to several issues of concem in contemporary epistemology.