ABSTRACT
The so-called traditional account of knowledge takes justified belief to be a constituent of knowledge. There is a sense in which the best one can do through philosophical reflection is assure oneself that one has a justified belief—whether or not one has knowledge as well is a matter of "luck," is a matter of whether the world cooperates so as to reward justified belief with truth. It is an understatement to suggest that there is no agreement among epistemologists as to how to analyze the concept of epistemic justification. The issue is potentially significant because the alleged normativity of epistemic justification has been used to attack prominent analyses of justified belief. There has been a great deal of literature attempting to cast doubt on the intelligibility of treating believing as an action, as something one chooses to do. A great many philosophers concerned with metaethics have sought to tie the meaning of ethical judgments to rules.
