Tag Archives: Moral conflict

A moral universe

Part of a series which began with Fake news and the ethics of belief.

A few articles ago (see Tweedledum said to Tweedledee) I floated the idea of an evidence principle:

[EP1] It is wrong to believe anything, within the category of descriptive belief, on insufficient evidence.

I called it ‘EP1’ because I expected to have to amend it later on. I could then call any future versions EP2, EP3 etc.

EP1 is based on William Clifford’s principle, which I’m calling ‘CP’:

[CP] …it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.1

EP1 only applies to descriptive beliefs, unlike CP. But as we saw in Would you Adam and Eve it? Clifford clearly intended CP to be a moral principle, and EP1 will also be a moral principle.

Continue reading

Conflict and compassion

Et tu, Brute? Vincenzo Camuccini: Death of Caesar

Et tu, Brute? Vincenzo Camuccini: Death of Caesar

This follows Crime and punishment as number 8 in a series of posts on the Golden Rule. The first was Any fool can make a rule. Next one is Once more without feeling.

Last time we asked the question: what if two or more duties to different people conflict? How can the Golden Rule or the Silver Rule be used to choose between them?

Continue reading