Final answer:
Unmitigated skepticism holds that it's impossible to attain knowledge due to constant doubt, while mitigated skepticism allows for cautious belief in knowledge through critical evaluation. Philosophers like Moore and Pascal offer differing responses to skepticism. In practical terms, mitigated skepticism encourages taking precautions against unlikely high-risk situations.
Step-by-step explanation:
The difference between unmitigated skepticism and mitigated skepticism concerns the level of doubt and questioning applied to the possibility of knowledge. Unmitigated skepticism asserts a stronger form, suggesting that no knowledge can ever be sufficiently justified due to the always-present possibility of error or deception, such as the brain in a vat argument.
In contrast, mitigated skepticism maintains a more balanced approach, urging critical evaluation and caution before accepting beliefs as knowledge while still recognizing that some degree of knowledge or truth can be achieved.
Philosophers like Moore and Pascal have approached these skeptical concerns differently, with Moore insisting on common sense beliefs over skeptical hypotheses, and Pascal advocating for faith when it comes to matters like the existence of God, recognizing the limits of human reason.
Moral skepticism, especially as noted by Hume, highlights the difficulty in justifying moral claims due to their normative nature—it is challenging to prove what ought to be the case based on what simply is the case. This skepticism suggests that while ethical discussions are rich in argumentation, the very nature of normative claims leaves room for doubt.
Mitigated skepticism, as proposed by Moody-Adams, allows for the exploration of moral objectivity without being fully deterred by the occasional irresolvable moral disagreements.
In terms of practical application, considering potential catastrophic threats, such as those mentioned in the context of asymmetric risk, illustrates the pragmatic side of mitigated skepticism, wherein there is value in taking precautions against unlikely but high-stakes scenarios, akin to buying insurance to mitigate risks.