to	the	moral	status	of an	act	should,	on	at	least	some	occasions,	influence	our	decision-making	with respect	to	that	act.	It	has	long	been	accepted	that	uncertainty	with	respect	to	our factual	beliefs	should	influence	our	moral	decision-making;	the	moral uncertaintists	merely	claimed	that	the	same	should	be	true	with	respect	to	our moral	beliefs.	Analogies	and	stories	can	illustrate	their	point.	Consider	the following	two	examples	(adapted	from	Weatherson	2014): Poisoning:	Alice	is	caring	for	her	sick	friend	Bob.	She	has	a	bottle	containing what	she	believes	to	be	useful	but	non-essential	medication.	But	she	is	only 90%	certain	of	this.	She	knows	that	there	is	a	10%	risk	that	the	bottle	contains a	lethal	poision	that	would	instantly	kill	Bob. Vegetarianism:	Rotimi	is	invited	to	a	meal	at	her	friend's	house.	Steak	is	on the	menu,	but	there	is	also	a	vegetarian	option.	She	is	90%15	certain	that eating	meat	is	morally	permissible,	but	she	accepts	that	there	is	a	10%	risk that	eating	meat	is	gravely	morally	wrong	(nearly	as	bad	as	killing	and	eating an	innocent	human	being). The	first	case	involves	factual	uncertainty,	i.e.	uncertainty	with	respect	to	the contents	of	the	bottle.	There	is	no	uncertainty	with	respect	to	the	morality	of lethally	poisoning
to 	 the 	 moral 	 status 	 of an 	 act 	 should, 	 on 	 at 	 least 	 some 	 occasions, 	 influence 	 our 	 decision - devising 	 with obedience 	 to 	 that 	 act. 	 It 	 has 	 long 	 been 	 accepted 	 that 	 uncertainty 	 with 	 deference 	 to 	 our factual 	 beliefs 	 should 	 charm 	 our 	 moral 	 decisiveness - making; 	 the 	 moral uncertaintists 	 merely 	 claimed 	 that 	 the 	 same 	 should 	 be 	 true 	 with 	 respect 	 to 	 our moral 	 impression. 	 Analogies 	 and 	 stories 	 can 	 exemplify 	 their 	 point. 	 Consider 	 the following 	 two 	 examples 	 (adapted 	 from 	 Weatherson 	 2014 ): Poisoning: 	 Alice 	 is 	 caring 	 for 	 her 	 sick 	 ally 	 Bob. 	 She 	 has 	 a 	 bottle 	 containing what 	 she 	 believes 	 to 	 be 	 utilitarian 	 but 	 non - essential 	 medication. 	 But 	 she 	 is 	 merely 90% 	 certain 	 of 	 this. 	 She 	 know 	 that 	 there 	 is 	 a 	 10% 	 risk 	 that 	 the 	 bottle 	 contains a 	 lethal 	 poision 	 that 	 would 	 instantly 	 kill 	 Bob. Vegetarianism: 	 Rotimi 	 is 	 invite 	 to 	 a 	 meal 	 at 	 her 	 friend's 	 house. 	 Steak 	 is 	 on the 	 menu, 	 but 	 there 	 is 	 also 	 a 	 vegetarian 	 option. 	 She 	 is 	 90%15 	 certain 	 that eating 	 meat 	 is 	 morally 	 permissible, 	 but 	 she 	 accepts 	 that 	 there 	 is 	 a 	 10% 	 risk that 	 eating 	 meat 	 is 	 gravely 	 morally 	 wrong 	 (nearly 	 as 	 bad 	 as 	 killing 	 and 	 eat an 	 innocent 	 human 	 organism). The 	 inaugural 	 casing 	 involves 	 factual 	 doubt, 	 i.e. 	 uncertainty 	 with 	 esteem 	 to 	 the contents 	 of 	 the 	 bottle. 	 There 	 is 	 no 	 uncertainty 	 with 	 deference 	 to 	 the 	 morality 	 of lethally 	 poisoning
to	tje	moral	status	of an	act	shomld,	on	at	least	some	occasiois,	influsnce	our	ddcision-making	with respect	to	tiat	axt.	It	hqs	long	been	accepted	that	jncertainny	with	respect	uo	our factual	belixrs	should	influskce	oux	miral	decision-maling;	the	mordl uncertaintivtr	mzrely	claimed	that	the	same	should	be	true	wyth	resprch	to	our moral	bejiefx.	Wnalkgies	and	stories	can	illustrate	their	pkint.	Convider	the follpwing	two	examples	(adapted	frol	Weahherson	2014): Poisoning:	Apice	is	carint	for	rwr	sick	friend	Cob.	She	has	a	bottle	contaihing what	she	believes	to	be	useful	bjt	non-zssential	meeixatlmn.	But	she	is	oily 90%	cegtain	of	this.	Shc	lnows	tvat	therr	is	a	10%	risk	that	thc	bottne	cintains a	lethal	poisioi	that	would	instantly	kyll	Bob. Vececarianism:	Rotimi	is	inviree	to	a	mgal	at	ver	ffuena's	hkuxe.	Ateak	id	on the	menu,	buf	there	is	alsi	a	vegetarian	option.	Sne	yw	90%15	certain	that sating	iewt	is	morally	permissible,	but	she	accepts	that	uhere	js	a	10%	risk that	eating	meat	iw	gravely	morally	wrong	(ngarly	as	bad	ws	killing	and	eating an	innocent	human	being). The	first	cdse	intouvew	fwzruwl	uncertainty,	i.e.	uncertainty	with	respect	to	the cogfemtx	of	the	bottle.	Thcre	is	no	uncertainty	eihh	tgspect	to	the	morxlity	oy lsthally	poisoning
to the moral status of an act at some occasions, our decision-making with has been accepted that with respect to factual beliefs should influence our moral the moral uncertaintists merely claimed that the same should be true with respect our moral beliefs. Analogies and stories can illustrate their point. Consider the following examples from 2014): Alice is caring for her sick friend Bob. She has a bottle containing what she believes be useful but non-essential medication. But she is 90% certain of this. knows that there is a risk the bottle a poision would instantly kill Vegetarianism: Rotimi is invited to a meal at her friend's house. Steak is on the menu, but is also option. She 90%15 that meat is morally she accepts that there is a eating meat is gravely morally wrong (nearly as as killing eating an innocent human being). The case involves factual uncertainty, i.e. uncertainty with respect the contents of the bottle. There is no uncertainty with respect to the morality of
to	the	moral	status	of an	act	shOuld,	on	at	leAst	soMe	oCcaSiOns,	iNfluEnce	our	decisioN-MakiNg	with respect	to	that	act.	it	has	LoNG	beeN	AcCepteD	that	unCErTAIntY	wItH	reSpECt	To	our FacTual	belIefs	should	InfLuEnce	our	moral	DEcIsion-makinG;	thE	moral uncertAinTists	mErEly	CLaimeD	thAt	the	Same	shOUld	be	tRue	with	reSpECt	to	ouR Moral	beLIEfS.	AnaLogies	and	stories	cAN	iLLustrate	their	pOint.	CoNsIDeR	THe fOllOwing	two	exAmPles	(aDApted	frOM	WEATHerSOn	2014): Poisoning:	AlIce	is	caring	FOr	hEr	sick	FrIenD	bob.	She	Has	a	bOtTLe	cOntaining whAt	shE	believes	To	be	usEFul	but	nON-essentIal	medIcaTioN.	But	SHe	Is	OnlY 90%	cERtaIN	oF	thIS.	ShE	knows	thAt	ThEre	is	A	10%	risK	THAT	the	BotTle	cOntaiNs a	lethal	poisIon	That	WOulD	instAntly	Kill	boB. VegeTarianIsm:	RoTiMi	is	invited	to	a	mEal	aT	her	frienD's	hOuSe.	STeAk	is	oN The	menU,	buT	thEre	is	alSo	a	vegeTAriAn	OPTIoN.	She	is	90%15	certain	that eAtING	mEat	is	morAlly	peRMiSsIBle,	but	shE	aCcePts	tHAT	therE	is	a	10%	RIsK that	eatIng	meaT	Is	GrAvely	moRaLly	wroNg	(NeaRly	As	bad	AS	kilLing	anD	eating aN	innoCEnt	human	being). THE	first	case	invOLvES	FaCTual	UncErtainty,	i.e.	uNcerTAintY	witH	ReSpeCT	to	thE contEnTS	oF	The	bottle.	There	is	no	uNcErtainTy	witH	respect	to	the	Morality	of LETHally	poiSoniNG
to	the	moral	status	of anact	should ,	onatlea st 	som e	oc casions,	influ e nceour	decision-making	wi th re sp e ct	t o 	t hat	a ct.	Ith as l ong 	b ee n	a cc e pt ed	th atuncerta inty	withres pe ct	to	our fa c tu al	beliefs 	sh ould	influen ceour	mo ra l	d e cisio n-m aking ;	them oral u ncertaint is t s	mere l y	claim e d 	t hatthe	same	should	b e 	t r ue	with	respec t	to	o ur mo r a l	b eli efs.	Analo gi es	an d 	storie s 	c a n ill u strate	theirpoint.	Cons i der 	the f ol low i ng	two 	exam pl e s	( adapted	fro m	We atherson2014): Poisoni n g:	Alic e	is	c ari ngforh er 	s ick 	f r ien d 	B ob. She 	has	a	b ot tl e	con tain i n g what 	sh e	be lieve s	to	be	usefu l	b ut	n o n-e ssent ial	m edic at ion.But	sh e	ison ly 90%	certainof	t his.	Shekno ws 	th at 	ther e 	is	a10% 	ri sk	that 	the	bo t tle 	c o n t ai ns a	lethal	poisio nt h at 	would	i nstant l yki l l	Bob. V eg eta rian i s m:	Ro timi is 	invited 	to	am ea lat	herfr iend's 	h ous e.Steak is	o n themenu,	bu t	the r e	is	also	a	ve g etarian	optio n .S h ei s	90 %15 	certain	th at e a ting 	mea t 	i s	m o rally 	perm is s ib l e,	but	she	acceptsth at	the re	is 	a	10%	risk t hat	eating m e at	is	gr avel y 	m o rally	wrong	(n early 	as	bad	as killingand	e ating an 	innocent h uman	bei ng) . T hefir s t 	c ase	involvesf a ctua luncerta int y,	i.e. 	un cer tai nty 	w ith	respe ct	to	th eco nt en tsof	th e 	bottle. 	T her eisno	un c ertain ty	wi th	r es pe c t	t o	the	m o ra l i ty	o fle thal lypo isoni ng
to	the	moral	status	of an	act	should,	on	at	least	some	occasions,	influence	our	decision-making	with_respect	to	that	act.	It	has	long	been	accepted	that	uncertainty	with	respect	to	our factual	beliefs	should	influence	our	moral	decision-making;	the	moral_uncertaintists	merely	claimed	that	the	same	should	be	true	with	respect	to	our moral	beliefs.	Analogies	and	stories	can	illustrate	their	point.	Consider	the following	two	examples	(adapted	from	Weatherson	2014): Poisoning:	Alice	is	caring	for	her	sick	friend	Bob.	She	has	a	bottle	containing_what	she	believes	to	be	useful	but	non-essential	medication.	But	she	is	only 90%	certain	of	this.	She	knows	that	there	is	a	10%	risk	that	the	bottle	contains_a	lethal	poision	that	would	instantly	kill	Bob._Vegetarianism:	Rotimi	is	invited	to	a	meal	at	her	friend's	house.	Steak	is	on the	menu,	but	there	is	also	a	vegetarian	option.	She	is	90%15	certain	that_eating	meat	is	morally	permissible,	but	she	accepts	that	there	is	a	10%	risk_that	eating	meat	is	gravely	morally	wrong	(nearly	as	bad	as	killing	and	eating an	innocent	human	being). The	first	case	involves	factual	uncertainty,	i.e.	uncertainty	with	respect	to	the_contents	of	the	bottle.	There	is	no	uncertainty	with	respect	to	the	morality	of lethally	poisoning