Hello,

My name is Will Crouch, I'm a PhD student at Oxford University. My current research is what one ought to do when one is morally uncertain. So, for example: one might be
almost certain that it is a good thing to kill a pig and eat it, because pigs have no moral value and one would get gustatory pleasure form eating it. But suppose that one has some doubts: one has a sneaking suspicion that killing the pig is wrong, and one believes that, if it is wrong, then it is really wrong (akin to murder). If so, then surely that small probability of a grave wrong gives one reason not to kill the pig?

I think that a vibrant consequentialist community cannot be encouraged strongly enough. It's easy to feel alienated or get waylaid if no one else around you thinks that Singer's drowning child argument works! (similarly for those worried about existential risk, or animal suffering). Each of us has the opportunity to do huge amounts of good in the world - and it's a lot easier to do that if one has peers who are motivated to do the same.

Welcome along Will. Which faculty are you with? Oxford's actually home to a relatively high number of consequentialists (myself included!) - I recommend going along to some of the Future of Humanity Institute or Uehiro seminars if you're feeling outnumbered.

Hi Will, welcome to the site. You'll find a lot of support for the notion of Singer's drowning child argument here, that's for sure!

I also share your interest in moral uncertainty. Partially because, having spent the past year as a profitable amateur poker play, I trade in uncertainty! Probability is one of the worst understood aspects of our existence! When you tangle up folk probability with problems of morality, it just becomes a madly complicated knot. But if you keep some consequentialists around you, it'll help you to never become overwhelmed!

Good luck on your work, it's tough but important stuff!

Ryan