This paper offers an alternate explanation of cases from the doxastic wronging literature. These cases violate what I call the degree of inquiry right-a novel account of zetetic obligations to inquire when interests are at stake. The degree of inquiry right is a moral right against other epistemic agents to inquire to a certain threshold when a belief undermines one's interests. Thus, the agents are sometimes obligated to leave inquiry open. I argue that we have relevant interests in reputation, relationships, and the well-being of our social groups. These interests generate obligations against others to "do their homework" before closing inquiry. This alternate account makes better sense of puzzles that accounts of doxastic wronging fall prey to.
I.1 It's noteworthy that several authors have identified that a right to privacy generates some epistemic obligations. Basu (2021), following Thomson (1975) and Marmor (2015), suggests that the right to privacy involves hiding certain facts about ourselves from others. This is because of a strong preference that others do not form true belief about us. Basu thinks that this shows that there are some morally relevant aspects to forming beliefs, which, she thinks, undermines purism. Similarly, Munch (2021, 2022 thinks that the right to privacy generates direct doxastic duties, e.g., a duty not to generalize based on statistical evidence. My account of the degree of inquiry right deviates from this literature. Part of the upshot of this piece is that we have specifically doxastic interests-and thus, specifically doxastic rights. For more on the right to privacy, see Hunter (2018).