Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:37:44.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Moral uncertainty and permissibility: Evaluating Option Sets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Christian Barry  and
Patrick Tomlin
Christian Barry*
Affiliation:
School of Philosophy, Research School of the Social Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
Patrick Tomlin
Affiliation:
Politics and International Relations, University of Reading, Reading, UK
*
Corresponding author. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this essay, we explore an issue of moral uncertainty: what we are permitted to do when we are unsure about which moral principles are correct. We develop a novel approach to this issue that incorporates important insights from previous work on moral uncertainty, while avoiding some of the difficulties that beset existing alternative approaches. Our approach is based on evaluating and choosing between option sets rather than particular conduct options. We show how our approach is particularly well-suited to address this issue of moral uncertainty with respect to agents that have credence in moral theories that are not fully consequentialist.

Keywords

Moral uncertaintyTed Lockhartconsequentialism and non-consequentialismmoral-belief-relative permissibility
Type
Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 46 , Issue 6 , December 2016 , pp. 898 - 923
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Guerrero, A. A. 2007. “Don’t Know, Don’t Kill: Moral Ignorance, Culpability and Caution.” Philosophical Studies 136: 59–97. 10.1007/s11098-007-9143-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, F., and Smith, M.. 2006. “Absolutist Moral Theories and Uncertainty.” Journal of Philosophy 103: 267–283. 10.5840/jphil2006103614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamm, F. M. 1992. “Non-Consequentialism, the Person as an End-in-Itself, and the Significance of Status.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 21: 354–389.Google Scholar
Lockhart, T. 2000. Moral Uncertainty and Its Consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moller, D. 2011. “Abortion and Moral Risk.” Philosophy 86: 425–443. 10.1017/S0031819111000222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parfit, D. 2011. On What Matters. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, J. 2006. “Rejecting Ethical Deflationism.” Ethics 116: 742–768. 10.1086/505234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sepielli, A. 2006. “Review: Ted Lockhart, Moral Uncertainty and Its Consequences.” Ethics 116: 601–604. 10.1086/500341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sepielli, A. 2009. “What to Do When You Don’t Know What to Do.” In Oxford Studies in Metaethics. Vol. 4, edited by Schafer-Landau, R., . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sepielli, A. 2012. “Normative Uncertainty for Non-Cognitivists.” Philosophical Studies 160: 191–207. 10.1007/s11098-011-9713-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sepielli, A. 2013a. “Moral Uncertainty and the Principle of Equity among Moral Theories.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 86: 580–589. 10.1111/phpr.2013.86.issue-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sepielli, A. 2013b. “What to Do When You Don’t Know What to Do When You Don’t Know What to Do…” Nous 47: 521–544.Google Scholar
Singer, P. 2009. The Life You Can Save. Melbourne: Text Publishing.Google Scholar
Weatherson, B. 2002. “Review: Moral Uncertainty and Its Consequences.” Mind 111: 693–696. 10.1093/mind/111.443.693CrossRefGoogle Scholar