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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that 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.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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