There are different conceptions of what it means to be “right” or “wrong”, and it’s pretty easy to move uncertainty around so that parts of a moral evaluation CAN be 100%, while remaining less than 100% for any given fact behind the judgement.
An easy example: murder is 100% wrong, BY DEFINITION of “murder”. If it’s not wrong, it’s not murder. But that just moves the uncertainty to “was this specific act murder”?
If you want to claim that nothing is 100% true, how do you react to “1 + 1 = 2”?
The clarification makes sense. As I wrote above, I should have thought of murder being defined this way.
Well, I’m pretty sure that “1 + 1 = 2” but couldn’t I be convinced otherwise? In that case, is it still reasonable to say that I am 100% confident that “1 + 1 = 2″? I feel like this is exactly what I am trying to ask here.
There are different conceptions of what it means to be “right” or “wrong”, and it’s pretty easy to move uncertainty around so that parts of a moral evaluation CAN be 100%, while remaining less than 100% for any given fact behind the judgement.
An easy example: murder is 100% wrong, BY DEFINITION of “murder”. If it’s not wrong, it’s not murder. But that just moves the uncertainty to “was this specific act murder”?
If you want to claim that nothing is 100% true, how do you react to “1 + 1 = 2”?
The clarification makes sense. As I wrote above, I should have thought of murder being defined this way.
Well, I’m pretty sure that “1 + 1 = 2” but couldn’t I be convinced otherwise? In that case, is it still reasonable to say that I am 100% confident that “1 + 1 = 2″? I feel like this is exactly what I am trying to ask here.