There was a debate in the late twentieth – century regarding to what kind of warrant (or

justification) that true belief must have to be counted as knowledge. Like what Arby have said
earlier that knowledge is belief that is good in two ways, it is both true and warranted. Then most
of the discussion at that time just focuses on the latter than the former, which is the warrant or
justification. In the previous discussion Arby also emphasized the importance of warrant as one
of the epistemic goods. And now we will proceed to the warrant of beliefs. For a belief to have a
good epistemic value, the warranting should be present. Some of the beliefs actually need it and
can profit from it.

But let us not forget that the desire for epistemic goods or such kind of epistemic
desiderata dwells in the person who has the consciousness, the power to think, and possesses the
flexibility of intelligence to meet the demands for these desires, desiderata as occasion arises.

So, let us consider first the basing condition. It is a condition for a belief’s being justified
(warranted) be based on reason. The justified beliefs are based on such grounds as perceptual
experiences (seeing the bird in the tree). It is not enough that the ground be present it is to be said
that the justified belief has to be based on the ground. For example, I believe the true proposition
that my wife is not home at the moment, and the ground of that belief is that she told me she’d be
out with her friend Suzie. According to the basing condition the justification that my wife is not
home at the moment be based on the ground that she told me she’d be out with Suzie. Then my
first belief is my actual reason for believing the second.

Then let us take the following scenario, that seemingly goes this way. I have a good
reason (that she’d be out with Suzie), but I have temporarily forgotten it. Then I believe that’s
why she is not home at the moment is just because of the beautiful spring day. I believe the
proposition that is based on the inadequate reason, meaning insufficient reason. The reason based
on because of the beautiful spring day is not sufficient probable enough to the belief that my wife
is not at home. It does not meet to the truth- conducivity of Alston, because it is too low in
making outcome possible. But the belief that would justify that she told me should be out it is
still there but temporarily forgotten, out of consciousness. So, my belief, is not justified, because
the reason that my wife is not at home, is based on an inadequate ground, even though an
adequate ground is somewhere in the neighborhood.
 Then the externalist might think that as long as the truth-conducive reason for believing
the proposition is the actual cause of my believing it, my true belief is justified (thus knowledge).
But according to the internalist as long as my belief does not meet or fit to the other, then my
belief is not based on the ground. Then the reason of my believing that my wife is not at home is
insufficient to the basing relation. The internalist sees the necessary connection of the agent’s
access to the basing relation and basing relation to itself. They emphasized that access or
connection is necessary to the basing relation. Unlike the externalist, according to them the
basing condition can be satisfied apart or independent from the access.

So here we could find the importance of right reason based on the good ground in
justifying or warranting one’s belief. Just imagine if your wife is being accused of burning your
house, and when the police ask you where is your wife, and you know that your wife at that time
was not at home. What would be your answer, Ay Sir today is beautiful spring day so that my
wife is not at home. Here I will not only have to have a right reason, but to know what it is.

Then let us go on to the next warrant which is coherence. It meant systematic logical,
consistency of thought/reason. Coherentism is a view that coherence is a necessary and
sufficient condition for any belief’s being warranted. Human beings have a natural coherence
disposition: we are susceptible for so many puzzlements in our lives if our beliefs do not cohere.
For example, I walk to the house and see that my wife’s tennis racquet is hanging in the closet.
Then she told me that this morning she’d be playing tennis and she only have one racket. Then it
is very confusing to me and I felt uncomfortable with it. It seems to me that I have an
inconsistent set of beliefs. Then I have to formulate another belief that would resolve the puzzle.
Did she buy another racket, or was it tomorrow she was to be playing tennis, o did she borrow it
from her friend? Once I resolve that incoherency, I gain warrant for my belief.

We must know that the coherence disposition is not just an ability but it is a desire, a
passion. It needs intellect to be functioned through one’s will. Through one’s desire to solve the
puzzlement brought by the incoherencies of beliefs. A person has the ability to detect and correct
incoherencies in his belief, but if he didn’t care about coherence, he would not function well
intellectually. And it must be governed by good judgment. Meaning we have to cultivate our
imagination and logical skills to notice incoherencies and to make it coherent one.
 Our desire or the desideratum is the fulfillment of all the epistemic obligations. Our
intellectual have obligation as well to consciously access to the right reason and to have
coherency in our belief set. Then this obligation adds notion of requirement, of the agent’s being
under some kind of authority. It could be the authority of Reason, Truth maybe even God.

In conclusion, the basing condition and the coherence are very important in the warrant
of beliefs. The belief must be based on the ground or right reason and it must have a systematic,
logistic and consistency of reasoning to gain warrant/justification. It is the human being who has
the obligation, the desire, who has the power to know, to have a flexibility of intelligence to meet
those epistemic goods as the occasion arises. The importance of the intellectual virtue and
intellectual obligation have imparted to these desiderata so that one’s intellectual duty has the
ability to judge correctly out of the virtue of passion that is associated to the obligation of the
intellectual consciousness. The epistemic obligation is a man’s duty who have the abilities to
drive and deliver these epistemic goods.