We can only play the cards we're dealt.Well, we only have sufficient information if our cognitive abilities are as adequate as we think they are.
That's precisely why Descartes decided we must doubt our senses, i.e. be skeptical - 'methodic doubt' in his terms. But this is the same problem as Berkeley's idealism, and they're problematic to refute - if there is no way to identify or distinguish them.To paraphrase Descartes, we can't know that sensory input is not the product of a malicious demon toying with our minds.
If the information we have about the world allows us to make generally coherent and consistent explanatory models that make fruitful predictions, it seems reasonable to provisionally take it 'as is' and suspend judgement about demon or Gods or other distorting influences manipulating our senses or perceptions, pending supporting evidence.
As it happens, we have found evidence of various distorting influences on our senses and perceptions, and well-informed people try to take these influences into account when interpreting them.
Not at all; I think it's important that we try to suspend judgement on moral propositions & issues about which we are not well-informed. It's not always possible - sometimes immediate action is necessary, and what constitutes 'sufficient' information is problematic in itself, but as moral judgements so often involve the well-being of ourselves and/or others, I think it's important.I take it this means that this particular approach is only applicable to broadly empirical questions? Suspending judgment on moral propositions, pending evidence of their truth or falsity, seems like a terrible idea.
Moral decisions have a strong emotional basis and a generally weak rational basis; even the way a proposition is presented can change people's moral judgement of it (as the Trolley Problems have - arguably - demonstrated), so skepticism seems an appropriate way to approach moral propositions.
Upvote
0