Individual Responsibility, Large-Scale Harms, and Radical Uncertainty

Area of Science:

• Ethics
• Moral Philosophy
• Applied Ethics

Background:

• Consequentialist ethical theories suggest individuals should act to minimize harm.
• Specific actions like avoiding meat or sweatshop goods are proposed to address large-scale harms.
• These arguments often appear intuitive, emphasizing low personal cost and significant positive impact.

Purpose of the Study:

• To critically evaluate the reasoning behind consequentialist arguments for individual actions against large-scale harms.
• To investigate the role of uncertainty in assessing the effectiveness of such actions.
• To distinguish empirically grounded objections from less convincing ones.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of consequentialist reasoning regarding individual actions and large-scale harms.
• Examination of the costs and benefits associated with prescribed actions.
• Distinguishing empirically grounded objections from other types of objections.

Main Results:

• Consequentialist arguments often rely on oversimplified cost-benefit analyses.
• There is significant uncertainty regarding the actual consequences of individual actions.
• A lack of sound basis exists to conclude these actions are more likely to help than backfire.

Conclusions:

• Radical uncertainty complicates the assessment of individual actions aimed at large-scale harms.
• Current consequentialist arguments for many specific individual actions are inconclusive.
• Further empirical understanding is needed to support or refute these ethical prescriptions.