Is Radical Doubt Morally Wrong? Unpacking the Ethical Consequences of Skepticism

Philosophical skepticism, particularly radical skepticism, challenges our everyday belief system by questioning the certainty of everything outside our immediate consciousness. Chris Ranalli’s paper delves into this philosophical discourse with a novel question: Is there a moral dimension to this pervasive doubt? In his compelling exploration, Ranalli argues that radical skepticism does not merely pose an intellectual conundrum but may infringe upon our moral obligations toward others.

The Moral Burden of Skepticism

At its core, skepticism requires us to question the existence of anything beyond our subjective experience. This could mean doubting everything from the external world and other minds to past events and the love of our children. However, Ranalli proposes a provocative stance: extending this doubt too far might conflict with the ethical commitments inherent in our relationships. Consider a simple example: believing in the love of our family. Skepticism might compel us to question the existence of our family members, undermining the very foundation of these relationships. But is such radical doubt justifiable, or does it encroach upon the trust and commitment required to maintain healthy interpersonal connections? Ranalli’s investigation suggests that such skepticism may be ethically deficient, compelling us to forsake necessary doxastic (belief-related) commitments we owe others.

The Ethical and Eudaimonic Weaknesses

The primary thrust of Ranalli’s argument is that radical skepticism can lead to what he terms a “serious moral and eudaimonic weakness.” By constantly doubting the existence and intentions of others, skeptics may fail to engage authentically in relationships, potentially leading to moral and personal failings. For example, failing to believe in your child's affection because you doubt their very existence could be seen as morally reprehensible by common societal standards.

Moreover, Ranalli distinguishes between two types of responses to skepticism: encroachment and abrogation. The former suggests that our moral and well-being considerations should influence our doxastic practices, perhaps leading us to moderate our skepticism. The latter, more extreme, posits that we might need to reject skepticism outright if it leads to moral transgressions or personal unhappiness.

The Political Implications

And now, ladies and gentlemen, we must venture to the continent of Africa, where they say that this whole human experiment kind of got started. And how exactly did that happen? To be honest with you, as I am no anthropologist (just an anthropomorphic duck, in my dreams), I have no clue how exactly it all went down (and, frankly, if I told you all that went down, it would probably burn off both your little ears) - but I have a pretty strong hunch that it went down like this:

The planksip Writers' Cooperative is proud to sponsor an exciting article rewriting competition where you can win part of over $750,000 in available prize money.

Figures of Speech Collection Personified

Our editorial instructions for your contest submission are simple: incorporate the quotes and imagery from the above article into your submission. What emerges is entirely up to you!

Winners receive $500 per winning entry multiplied by the article's featured quotes. Our largest prize is $8,000 for rewriting the following article;

At planksip, we believe in changing the way people engage—at least, that's the Idea (ἰδέα). By becoming a member of our thought-provoking community, you'll have the chance to win incredible prizes and access our extensive network of media outlets, which will amplify your voice as a thought leader. Your membership truly matters!