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
    It is morally permissible to bring about and maintain a b... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    It is morally permissible to bring about and maintain a belief for which one lacks adequate evidence when doing so is necessary to save humankind.

    ConsequentialismMoral Responsibility
    ?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.Extraterrestrials with the power to destroy Earth will spare humanity only if a specific individual acquires and maintains a belief for which that individual lacks adequate evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The individual can bring about the required belief through a technological means (a serum or doxastic-producing pills) rather than through direct acts of will.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Saving humankind from destruction is a sufficiently weighty moral outcome.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.W.K. Clifford's evidentialist principle holds that it is wrong always and everywhere to believe anything on insufficient evidence, regardless of consequences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A consequentialist override of epistemic duties licenses systemic corruption of rational inquiry, eroding the social epistemic infrastructure that makes human flourishing possible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The harm from normalizing belief without evidence is diffuse, cumulative, and greater than any single act of belief-engineering can prevent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Bernard Williams argued that integrity requires that an agent's actions flow from their own commitments; chemically induced belief severs the causal link between self and doxastic state.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An action that destroys the rational autonomy of the believer cannot be morally permissible, even under extreme consequentialist pressure, because persons are not mere vessels for useful mental states.
      ?

      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 ResponsibilityConsequentialism

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge1 linked

    Related

    A consequentialist override of epistemic duties licenses systemic corruption of ...An action that destroys the rational autonomy of the believer cannot be morally ...Bernard Williams argued that integrity requires that an agent's actions flow fro...Extraterrestrials with the power to destroy Earth will spare humanity only if a ...
    +5 moreShow less
    Saving humankind from destruction is a sufficiently weighty moral outcome.The harm from normalizing belief without evidence is diffuse, cumulative, and gr...The individual can bring about the required belief through a technological means...Using available means to produce a belief that saves humankind does no wrong to ...W.K. Clifford's evidentialist principle holds that it is wrong always and everyw...

    Similar

    A morally and intellectually responsible person can have a moral duty ...85%It is always morally permissible to bring about the best outcome.84%Using available means to produce a belief that saves humankind does no...82%Belief in God is morally necessary81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: pragmatic-belief-god
    View source passageHide passage
    Devious ETs: Suppose you are abducted by very powerful and advanced extraterrestrials, who demonstrate their intent and power to destroy the Earth. Moreover, these fiendish ETs offer but one chance of salvation for humankind – you acquire and maintain a belief for which you lack adequate evidence. You adroitly point out that you cannot just will such a belief, especially since you know of no good reason to think it true. Devilish in their anticipation and in their technology, the ETs produce a d
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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