Do we know what the relative moral worth of cows and insects is? No. But we can make a best guess based on the available evidence, the same way we do with any other kind of uncertainty. It seems to me like this argument is just “we can’t be certain about anything, therefore we have no basis on which to choose one action over another”, dressed up a little.
No I don’t, it can be subjective and the argument still goes through.
If you comply with the VNM axioms then you have an (effective) utility function and so that moral worth is calculable. And if you don’t follow those axioms you get dutch-booked.
it can be subjective and the argument still goes through.
How does that work? Alice thinks the moral worth of a cow is high enough not to mistreat or eat it. Bob thinks that the moral worth of a cow is zero and cares only about the quality of his steak. How are you going to reconcile their views (or even estimates)?
I’m not. Each of them has a moral opinion and knows what they believe to be the right action. Their disagreement is an ordinary moral disagreement; there are plenty of other moral questions where there is no consensus.
Sure, but then there is no problem in knowing, ever. You said “we don’t know, but we can make an estimate” and with respect to my personal opinion about how delicious a certain food is, I have immediate direct knowledge and no need for estimates.
Do we know what the relative moral worth of cows and insects is? No. But we can make a best guess based on the available evidence, the same way we do with any other kind of uncertainty. It seems to me like this argument is just “we can’t be certain about anything, therefore we have no basis on which to choose one action over another”, dressed up a little.
You assume that this moral worth objectively exists waiting to be discovered and known.
No I don’t, it can be subjective and the argument still goes through.
If you comply with the VNM axioms then you have an (effective) utility function and so that moral worth is calculable. And if you don’t follow those axioms you get dutch-booked.
How does that work? Alice thinks the moral worth of a cow is high enough not to mistreat or eat it. Bob thinks that the moral worth of a cow is zero and cares only about the quality of his steak. How are you going to reconcile their views (or even estimates)?
I’m not. Each of them has a moral opinion and knows what they believe to be the right action. Their disagreement is an ordinary moral disagreement; there are plenty of other moral questions where there is no consensus.
So in this context what does knowing “the relative moral worth of cows and insects” mean?
The same thing as knowing how delicious a certain food is.
Sure, but then there is no problem in knowing, ever. You said “we don’t know, but we can make an estimate” and with respect to my personal opinion about how delicious a certain food is, I have immediate direct knowledge and no need for estimates.