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
    Clifford's Rule derives its moral validity from that inte... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Clifford's Rule — believe only those propositions that enjoy adequate evidential support — is morally valid

    Clifford's Rule derives its moral validity from that intellectual goal

    Moral ResponsibilityTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Skepticism1 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Moral Responsibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    As intellectual beings, humans have the dual goal of maximizing significant true...Clifford's Rule — believe only those propositions that enjoy adequate evidential...

    Similar

    Clifford's Rule serves that intellectual goal83%Virtue — both intellectual and moral — is required for sound moral jud...81%Prudentia is both an intellectual and a moral virtue that directs the ...80%Knowledge requires believing the truth because of one's intellectual v...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: pragmatic-belief-god
    View source passageHide passage
    A more significant objection contends that James’s argument fails “to show that one can have a sufficient moral reason for self-inducing an epistemically unsupported belief” (Gale 1990, 283). This objection contends that there is a weighty moral duty to proportion one’s beliefs to the evidence, and that this duty flows from moral personhood – to be a morally responsible person requires that one have good reasons for each of one’s beliefs. But to believe an epistemically unsupported proposition i

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective