TY - JOUR
T1 - Probabilism reconsidered
T2 - Deference to experts, types of uncertainty, and medicines
AU - Schwartz, Daniel
PY - 2014/7
Y1 - 2014/7
N2 - Probabilist moral theologians held that, in situations of uncertainty, it is morally permissible for an expert to defer to an opinion regarded as less probable than his own (which he retains unchanged). Probabilism has been customarily taken to answer the question: "how should I act in circumstances of moral uncertainty?" I argue that originally it constituted an answer to the very different question: "what weight should experts assign to the opinions of their peers when providing advice to laymen?" Critics charged that medical cases show that probabilism is wrong. I analyze three attempts by probabilists to address this charge.
AB - Probabilist moral theologians held that, in situations of uncertainty, it is morally permissible for an expert to defer to an opinion regarded as less probable than his own (which he retains unchanged). Probabilism has been customarily taken to answer the question: "how should I act in circumstances of moral uncertainty?" I argue that originally it constituted an answer to the very different question: "what weight should experts assign to the opinions of their peers when providing advice to laymen?" Critics charged that medical cases show that probabilism is wrong. I analyze three attempts by probabilists to address this charge.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84904295923&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1353/jhi.2014.0024
DO - 10.1353/jhi.2014.0024
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
C2 - 25151815
AN - SCOPUS:84904295923
SN - 0022-5037
VL - 75
SP - 373
EP - 393
JO - Journal of the History of Ideas
JF - Journal of the History of Ideas
IS - 3
ER -