Thanks for this. I agree with you—I find the argument that Williams makes compelling. When we look at our own actions, it seems that we could consider two questions: 1) What is the evidence that is influencing our actions? 2) How are we justifying our actions, in light of the available evidence?
In the past, slave owners and Vikings (or similar) might have had the wrong information (e.g. our victims do not have the capacity for suffering) or the wrong justification (e.g. our victims can and will suffer, but their suffering is justifiable because x, y, and z). Since we have access to more information than ever before, perhaps we are less likely to be misinformed. In that case, we need to be especially critical about how we justify our actions when we know they cause suffering. For example, we might kill deer in an area where there is overpopulation because we want to protect the ecosystem. Or we might allow for late-term abortions in cases where a baby would not survive more than a day or two. In these cases, suffering is possible but we justify it.
It seems to me that cases of this kind are the ones in which we need to be especially vigilant about our reasoning. When it comes to something like “secularism leading to many people going to hell,” it seems that we are on somewhat safer ground as we have no evidence for this—the problem is with the evidence, not the reasoning. Perhaps I’m wrong, but that’s my instinct.
Thanks for this. I agree with you—I find the argument that Williams makes compelling. When we look at our own actions, it seems that we could consider two questions: 1) What is the evidence that is influencing our actions? 2) How are we justifying our actions, in light of the available evidence?
In the past, slave owners and Vikings (or similar) might have had the wrong information (e.g. our victims do not have the capacity for suffering) or the wrong justification (e.g. our victims can and will suffer, but their suffering is justifiable because x, y, and z). Since we have access to more information than ever before, perhaps we are less likely to be misinformed. In that case, we need to be especially critical about how we justify our actions when we know they cause suffering. For example, we might kill deer in an area where there is overpopulation because we want to protect the ecosystem. Or we might allow for late-term abortions in cases where a baby would not survive more than a day or two. In these cases, suffering is possible but we justify it.
It seems to me that cases of this kind are the ones in which we need to be especially vigilant about our reasoning. When it comes to something like “secularism leading to many people going to hell,” it seems that we are on somewhat safer ground as we have no evidence for this—the problem is with the evidence, not the reasoning. Perhaps I’m wrong, but that’s my instinct.