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
    Therefore, believing under evidential uncertainty can be ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

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

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

    ?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.Morality sometimes requires action despite uncertainty; paralysis by evidential standards can cause severe harm that ethics demands we prevent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Epistemic norms serve human flourishing, not vice versa; when strict evidential proportionality undermines welfare, proportionality should yield.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.We routinely justify beliefs on practical grounds in medicine and safety; extending this to high-stakes domains is ethically consistent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Permitting belief without sufficient evidence erodes epistemic integrity and enables rationalization of any preferred conclusion by cost-benefit argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Practical costs don't alter truth-conditions; moral consequences cannot determine what we have warrant to believe without collapsing is into ought.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This framework risks justifying harmful false beliefs when agents underestimate harms or miscalculate costs relative to actual evidence available.
      ?

      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

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedMoral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    Anyone who believes a proposition that they do not take to be more likely than n...Epistemic norms serve human flourishing, not vice versa; when strict evidential ...Morality sometimes requires action despite uncertainty; paralysis by evidential ...Permitting belief without sufficient evidence erodes epistemic integrity and ena...
    +3 moreShow less
    Practical costs don't alter truth-conditions; moral consequences cannot determin...This framework risks justifying harmful false beliefs when agents underestimate ...We routinely justify beliefs on practical grounds in medicine and safety; extend...

    Details

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