Recklessness and Uncertainty: Jackson Cases and Merely Apparent Asymmetry

Journal of Moral Philosophy 16 (4):391-413 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Is normative uncertainty like factual uncertainty? Should it have the same effects on our actions? Some have thought not. Those who defend an asymmetry between normative and factual uncertainty typically do so as part of the claim that our moral beliefs in general are irrelevant to both the moral value and the moral worth of our actions. Here I use the consideration of Jackson cases to challenge this view, arguing that we can explain away the apparent asymmetries between normative and factual uncertainty by considering the particular features of the cases in greater detail. Such consideration shows that, in fact, normative and factual uncertainty are equally relevant to moral assessment.

Author's Profile

Claire Field
University of Stirling

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-10-23

Downloads
745 (#16,925)

6 months
158 (#15,102)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?