{"title":"Moral Uncertainty, by William MacAskill, Krister Bykvist and Toby Ord. Oxford University Press, 2020, viii + 226 pages","authors":"M. Pivato","doi":"10.1017/S0266267121000122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We have all experienced ‘moral uncertainty’, in the sense of being unsure of the correct morality. Despite such uncertainty, we must make morally loaded decisions. Here is one obvious response: first, identify the moral theory you find the most plausible; then, make decisions as prescribed by this theory. But the monograph under review represents a recent literature that explores a different approach, based on maximizing expected choiceworthiness. For example, suppose I am invited to dinner, and I can order Meat or Tofu. If I order Tofu, it will hurt my host’s feelings. However, I am torn between two moral theories. I assign 95% credence to Theory X, which says it is okay to eat meat. But I assign 5% credence to Theory Y, which says meat is an atrocity. My moral decision problem can be described by the following table.","PeriodicalId":51643,"journal":{"name":"Economics and Philosophy","volume":"38 1","pages":"152 - 158"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0266267121000122","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Economics and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267121000122","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
We have all experienced ‘moral uncertainty’, in the sense of being unsure of the correct morality. Despite such uncertainty, we must make morally loaded decisions. Here is one obvious response: first, identify the moral theory you find the most plausible; then, make decisions as prescribed by this theory. But the monograph under review represents a recent literature that explores a different approach, based on maximizing expected choiceworthiness. For example, suppose I am invited to dinner, and I can order Meat or Tofu. If I order Tofu, it will hurt my host’s feelings. However, I am torn between two moral theories. I assign 95% credence to Theory X, which says it is okay to eat meat. But I assign 5% credence to Theory Y, which says meat is an atrocity. My moral decision problem can be described by the following table.
期刊介绍:
The disciplines of economics and philosophy each possess their own special analytical methods, whose combination is powerful and fruitful. Each discipline can be enriched by the other. Economics and Philosophy aims to promote their mutual enrichment by publishing articles and book reviews in all areas linking these subjects. Topics include the methodology and epistemology of economics, the foundations of decision theory and game theory, the nature of rational choice in general, historical work on economics with a philosophical purpose, ethical issues in economics, the use of economic techniques in ethical theory, and many other subjects.