Kevin Reuter – Doxastic Wronging and Moral Encroachment: An Experimental Study

Abstract

Recent work at the intersection between epistemology and ethics has defended two controversial claims: that beliefs can wrong others, and that moral considerations can affect the evidential standards for justified belief. This paper experimentally investigates whether ordinary judgments about wrongful belief and justified belief reflect these claims.

Across three studies, participants assessed evidential thresholds in cases where the statistical evidence was held fixed. What varied was the moral significance of the belief, specifically whether it could lead to wrongful action or was itself potentially wrongful. The results are mixed but suggestive. Participants required stronger evidence in morally charged cases, and some findings suggest that beliefs themselves carry a distinctive moral significance.

Philosophically, our findings raise further questions about the exact nature and contours of doxastic wronging and moral encroachment.