How to insure against utilitarian overconfidence

Area of Science:

• Moral Philosophy
• Bioethics
• Utilitarianism

Background:

• Utilitarianism often presents strong moral conclusions.
• Concerns exist regarding the application of utilitarian principles to sensitive ethical issues like medical experimentation and infanticide.

Purpose of the Study:

• To analyze overconfident presentations of utilitarian moral conclusions.
• To propose a framework for mitigating risks associated with potentially flawed ethical reasoning.

Main Methods:

• Critical examination of specific utilitarian arguments (Peter Singer's animal experiment analogy, defenses of infanticide/after-birth abortion).
• Conceptual development of "moral insurance" as a protective measure against ethical errors.

Main Results:

• Identifies overconfidence in translating certain utilitarian conclusions into moral advice.
• Highlights the severe negative consequences of potential errors in these ethical arguments.

Conclusions:

• Recommends caution and rejection of specific utilitarian-driven actions (human experimentation, newborn killing).
• Advocates for a "moral insurance" policy to safeguard against the high costs of mistaken moral reasoning.