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
    Anyone who believes a proposition that they do not take t... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Anyone who believes a proposition that they do not take to be more likely than not is thereby acting immorally.

    Moral ResponsibilityTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Believing a proposition one does not take to be more likely than not constitutes believing upon insufficient evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.William James argued in 'The Will to Believe' that forced, live, momentous options with no available evidence may be decided by passional nature without moral fault.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When evidence is genuinely insufficient to determine a question, suspending judgment is itself a choice with moral costs, not a morally neutral default.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, believing under evidential uncertainty can be morally permissible when the costs of non-belief outweigh the epistemic norm of proportioning belief to evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Clifford's evidentialism presupposes that all beliefs are subject to the same epistemic norms, but first-person practical commitments (e.g., trusting a loved one) occupy a distinct normative domain from third-person theoretical inquiry.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Moral evaluation of belief requires assessing the agent's full epistemic situation, including whether evidence-gathering was reasonably available, not merely the probability assigned to the proposition.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Believing a proposition one does not take to be more likely than not constitutes...Clifford's evidentialism presupposes that all beliefs are subject to the same ep...It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything upon insuffic...Moral evaluation of belief requires assessing the agent's full epistemic situati...
    +3 moreShow less
    Therefore, believing under evidential uncertainty can be morally permissible whe...When evidence is genuinely insufficient to determine a question, suspending judg...William James argued in 'The Will to Believe' that forced, live, momentous optio...

    Similar

    One could be foundationally justified in believing a proposition that ...80%Believing a proposition one does not take to be more likely than not c...80%If a person does not regard a proposition as true, that person cannot ...80%Adopting a belief in order to benefit from a plan one knows to be immo...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: pragmatic-belief-god
    View source passageHide passage
    Clifford presented evidentialism as a rule of morality: “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for any one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence” (Clifford 1879, 186). If Clifford’s Rule of morality is correct, then any one who believes a proposition that she does not take to be more likely than not, is, thereby, immoral. It may be worthwhile to note that Clifford’s argument here is itself a moral pragmatic argument.
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit