Reasoning with Comparative Moral Judgements: An Argument for Moral Bayesianism

Part of the Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning book series (LARI, volume 14)


The paper discusses the notion of reasoning with comparative moral judgements (i.e. judgements of the form “act a is morally superior to act b”) from the point of view of several meta-ethical positions. Using a simple formal result, it is argued that only a version of moral cognitivism that is committed to the claim that moral beliefs come in degrees can give a normatively plausible account of such reasoning. Some implications of accepting such a version of moral cognitivism are discussed.


Moral bayesianism Moral uncertainty Moral reasoning Conditionalization Commutativity The lottery paradox 



This research has been supported by the Israeli Science Foundation (grant number:1042/13). I thank Richard Bradley, Christian List and two anonymous referees for their useful suggestions.


  1. 1.
    Bradley, R., & List, C. (2009). Desire-as-belief revisited. Analysis, 69(1), 31–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Broome, J. (1991). Desire, belief and expectation. Mind, 100(2), 265–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Broome, J. (2006). Reasoning with preferences? Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements, 59, 183–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Easwaran, K. Dr. truthlove, or how i learned to stop worrying and love bayesian probabilities. forthcoming.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Easwaran, K., & Fitelson, B. (2015). Accuracy, coherence, and evidence. Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 5, 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Field, H. (1978). A note on Jeffrey conditionalization. Philosophy of Science, 45(3), 361–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Greene, J.D. (2007). The secret joke of kants soul. Moral Psychology: Historical and Contemporary Readings, 359–372.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hansson, S. O. (1995). Changes in preference. Theory and Decision, 38(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hansson, S. O. (2001). The structure of values and norms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jackson, F., & Smith, M. (2006). Absolutist moral theories and uncertainty. The Journal of philosophy, 267–283.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jeffrey, R. (1992). Probability and the art of judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Joyce, J. M. (1998). A nonpragmatic vindication of probabilism. Philosophy of Science, 65(4), 575–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kyburg, H.E. (1961). Probability and the logic of rational belief.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lepage, F., & Morgan, C. (2011). Revision with conditional probability functions: Two impossibility results. In Dynamic formal epistemology (pp. 161–172). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    List, C. (2012). The theory of judgment aggregation: An introductory review. Synthese, 187(1), 179–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lockhart, T. (2000). Moral uncertainty and its consequences.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mikhail, J. (2007). Universal moral grammar: Theory, evidence and the future. Trends in cognitive sciences, 11(4), 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nissan-Rozen, I. (2012). Doing the best one can: A new justification for the use of lotteries. Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, 5(1), 45–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oddie, G. (1994). Harmony, purity, truth. Mind, 103(412), 451–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Piller, C. (2000). Doing what is best. The Philosophical Quarterly, 50(199), 208–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Price, H. (1989). Defending desire-as-belief. Mind, 98(389), 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sepielli, A. (2009). What to do when you don’t know what to do. Oxford studies in Metaethics, (4). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Singer, P. (1972). Famine, affluence, and morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 229–243.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Singer, P. (2005). Intuitions, heuristics, and utilitarianism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 560–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Smith, M. (2002). Evaluation, uncertainty and motivation. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 5(3), 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Moral heuristics. Behavioral and brain sciences, 28(4), 531–541.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Van Roojen, M. (2009). Moral cognitivism vs. non-cognitivism. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy and PPEThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations