There are both good and bad points about moral certainty. To summarize The bad: it is difficult to recognize and correct if you are in error. The good: you become driven to achieve what you set out to do much more than someone who is not as certain. If you are correct, the world is a better place. If you are wrong, then things can get very, very bad.
I wonder if it is a net force for good or bad in the world. The answer is not obvious.
I would look askance at any argument from first principles about this question. It is too easy to rationalize an argument to fit your beliefs and opinions. Instead, I would be interested in some sort of formal or semiformal definition and a historical study done to judge the tradeoff. This is a case where a determination should be made dispassionately.
Very nice exposition David.
There are both good and bad points about moral certainty. To summarize The bad: it is difficult to recognize and correct if you are in error. The good: you become driven to achieve what you set out to do much more than someone who is not as certain. If you are correct, the world is a better place. If you are wrong, then things can get very, very bad.
I wonder if it is a net force for good or bad in the world. The answer is not obvious.
I would look askance at any argument from first principles about this question. It is too easy to rationalize an argument to fit your beliefs and opinions. Instead, I would be interested in some sort of formal or semiformal definition and a historical study done to judge the tradeoff. This is a case where a determination should be made dispassionately.
Thank you- this is why I left the UU church after 49 years- their political positioning did not recognize complexity