Book Review: Moral Uncertainty

In Moral Uncertainty, philosophers William MacAskill, Krister Bykvist, and Toby Ord tackle the following underappreciated moral problem, bearing implications in every corner of our lives. When we have to make a moral choice, we face an inner conflict: which options, A or B, should you choose if you are uncertain about which is morally good?

The history of moral philosophy has produced moral theories, providing recommendations for choosing a specific course of action. If you believe in Kant's philosophy or Bentham's philosophy, you will act upon their respective recommendations. But take a step back. What should you do if uncertain about following Kant's or Bentham's lead? This is the question left unanswered by moral philosophy that the authors tackle.

The challenge is avoiding producing another moral theory in answering this problem, as has been done so far. This is where this book's originality lies. It succeeds in proposing different innovative solutions that anyone who is uncertain about what to do and desires to avoid the particular lead of one particular moral theory can use. The first solution they propose will be helpful for anyone who faces individually such a moral problem. The second solution will be helpful for anyone concerned with adress such a problem at the societal level. The authors developed them carefully, using techniques from philosophical decision theory, economic philosophy, welfare and political philosophy, meta-ethics, and ethics. This impressive deep, large frontier research work renders the book a rare and seminal contribution.

As a dual Ph.D. student in philosophy and economics writing on this problem for my doctoral thesis, this book has been the basis for my research. Original solutions span from the individual to the collective level throughout the book. I cannot but recommend anyone interested in the topic or specialists eager to confront themselves with frontier-edge research in philosophy. The book's elegancy lies in the following fact. While this problem has become central to recent debates in technical circles in academic philosophy, it is written so that non-technical audiences can read and learn from it. It is instrumental in informing the public and renewing the current political debate where more political tolerance between communities is needed.