Authors
Elizabeth Harman
Princeton University
Abstract
Suppose you believe you’re morally required to φ‎ but that it’s not a big deal; and yet you think it might be deeply morally wrong to φ‎. You are in a state of moral uncertainty, holding high credence in one moral view of your situation, while having a small credence in a radically opposing moral view. A natural thought is that in such a case you should not φ‎, because φ‎ing would be too morally risky. The author argues that this natural thought is misguided. If φ‎ing is in fact morally required, then you should φ‎, and this is so even taking into account your moral uncertainty. The author argues that if the natural thought were correct, then being caught in the grip of a false moral view would be exculpatory: people who do morally wrong things thinking they are acting morally rightly would be blameless. But being caught in the grip of a false moral view is not exculpatory. So the natural thought is false. The author develops the claim that you should act as morality actually requires as a candidate answer to the question “how should one act in the face of moral uncertainty?” This answer has been dismissed in discussion up to this point. The author argues that not only is this answer a serious contender; it is the correct answer.
Keywords moral uncertainty, moral risk, false moral views, moral responsibility, blameworthiness
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198738695.003.0003
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 60,901
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Running Risks Morally.Brian Weatherson - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 167 (1):141-163.
Opting for the Best: Oughts and Options.Douglas W. Portmore - 2019 - New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.
Right in Some Respects: Reasons as Evidence.Daniel Whiting - 2018 - Philosophical Studies 175 (9):2191-2208.

View all 38 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Moral Uncertainty and the Criminal Law.Christian Barry & Patrick Tomlin - 2019 - In Kimberly Ferzan & Larry Alexander (eds.), Handbook of Applied Ethics and the Criminal Law. New York: Palgrave.
Against Moral Hedging.Ittay Nissan-Rozen - 2015 - Economics and Philosophy (3):1-21.
Moral Uncertainty and Value Comparison.Amelia Hick - 2018 - Oxford Studies in Metaethics 13.
Moral Uncertainty and Fetishistic Motivation.Andrew Sepielli - 2016 - Philosophical Studies 173 (11):2951-2968.
Moral Uncertainty.Krister Bykvist - 2017 - Philosophy Compass 12 (3):e12408.
Moral Uncertainty and Value Comparison.Amelia Hicks - 2018 - In Russ Shafer Landau (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics, Volume 13. Oxford, UK: pp. 161-183.
Moral Uncertainty and its Consequences.Ted Lockhart - 2000 - Oxford University Press.
Moral Excuses and Blame-Based Theories of Moral Wrongness.Benjamin Rossi - 2016 - Southwest Philosophy Review 32 (1):153-165.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-04-07

Total views
44 ( #237,380 of 2,439,040 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
13 ( #50,838 of 2,439,040 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes