Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    An agent's epistemic limitations can themselves be morall... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Moore should revise his consequentialism to hold that one ought to do the action one has reason to believe will produce the best consequences, rather than the action that actually will produce the best consequences.

    An agent's epistemic limitations can themselves be morally culpable, so 'reason to believe' cannot fully discharge the agent's objective moral responsibility.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Agents can culpably fail to acquire evidence through negligence, inattention, or willful ignorance before acting.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Moral responsibility requires reasonable diligence in belief-formation, not merely good-faith reasoning from available evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If epistemic negligence is itself blameworthy, then subjective justification cannot fully excuse objective wrongdoing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Holding agents responsible for epistemic limitations conflates what they can control (inquiry efforts) with what they cannot (cognitive capacity).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Objective moral responsibility requires the agent possessed actual or accessible reasons; epistemic gaps are precisely where neither exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Blaming someone for not knowing something creates infinite regress: they'd need prior knowledge of what they should have investigated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Consequentialism1 linked

    Related

    Agents can culpably fail to acquire evidence through negligence, inattention, or...Blaming someone for not knowing something creates infinite regress: they'd need ...Holding agents responsible for epistemic limitations conflates what they can con...If epistemic negligence is itself blameworthy, then subjective justification can...
    +3 moreShow less
    Moore should revise his consequentialism to hold that one ought to do the action...Moral responsibility requires reasonable diligence in belief-formation, not mere...Objective moral responsibility requires the agent possessed actual or accessible...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit