I'm not sure I follow, perhaps you're addressing something slightly different.

"This is just Gettier warmed over. "

That's the point. I'm explaining the Gettier argument to start the conversation as an example of an intuition.

As for your argument about the Gettier case. It is true (or at least I can't think of any counter-examples) that if you define epistemic justification along externalist lines, and also insist that belief that P is never justified if P is false, you will avoid the Gettier problem. However many would say that this kind of externalist infalliablism about justification is pretty far from our folk concept of what a justified belief is. It seems like you can have a justified belief and that belief can be false. Are you really going to say that looking at your watch isn't sufficient justification for knowing the time?

Most decisions are made by committees selected from the adult population through sortion. These committees may utilise expert advice as appropriate. These sortition committees exist in all kinds of configurations. For example, very important decisions might be made by multiple groups of people, in case group-think arises in one particular group- there would be a vote within each group and then a vote of each group. The state owns all capital, but creates and directs firms to compete in order to gain the positive effects of a market.

The character of harm OCD isn't that of sexual desires (some people with harm OCD falsely believe their compulsions represent real desires- sexual or otherwise- though fortunately I am not one of them.) I experience genuine sexual desire all the time, and am perfectly comfortable with it.

I would strongly advise chatting to a professional if you have the means. Harm OCD is one of those mental illnesses where it can be very hard to go it alone. I've also found reading about the experiences of others with harm OCD very helpful for aiding me in gaining distance, but that might just be a me thing.

Re: Adviser, there's a whole saga there. My initial advisor got removed during a round of staff cuts. Both of my advisors were good, but changing advisors was disruptive, and my mental health problems meant I didn't utilise them as effectively as I should have.

I actually think the linguistic/conceptual stuff itself is super important- we need a cartography of important concepts, and how and why they can vary. The thing is though, they have to be studied using linguistic, psychological and anthropological tools in combination with philosophical tools. Something like experimental philosophy, but far less shallow, and drawing on qualitative methods as well as quantitative, integrating related fields including lexical semantics, the history of ideas, the cognitive psychology of concepts and so on.

Quantifying this would be extremely difficult, and whatever system or counting metric you built to quantify it would probably front load your answer in.

I'll try resubmitting. Cheers all.

Generally speaking, when someone resists a thought experiment by trying to argue that actually you have further options, it's possible to modify the thought experiment so as to remove those options.

For example, in this case, let's say that instead of a murderer at the door you're chatting to a random person. Unless, during that conversation, you tell that person at least a small lie, a mad genie who is watching the whole thing via a crystal ball will kill your family. The genie is unstoppable and will do this thing unless you tell a lie. The lie must be a lie in every sense.

You can't 'get out' of thought experiments by pleading other options. So long as there is at least one possible situation where your two options are lying or your family being murdered, than the thought experiment stands.

I would argue that an opinion:

1. Which is poorly considered and researched AND
2. Which is likely to do harm through your holding it AND
3. Which you should know will have important consequences, dependent on whether it is true or false.

Is immoral to hold. In other words, it is immoral to hold beliefs with important consequences without considering such beliefs.

More exactly, it is the fact of the opinion being poorly considered and researched which is immoral- so strictly speaking the opinion isn't immoral, but the process that leads to it is. It is commonly thought that doxastic states (states of belief) are involuntary. This may be true (I'm honestly not sure), but one can control one's choices to research a topic, spend time considering it etc.

For example, if you believe that Italian people are dreadful, and as a result refuse to vote for any Italian candidates, give your vote to anyone who promises to stop Italian immigration etc. you have an opinion which is doing harm through its effect on your behaviour. If (as seems likely) you haven't bothered to research it or consider it, despite knowing that such a belief will have important effects, it seems to me that you are behaving unethically.

I'm interested in why you think it is immoral to break the law, this seems controversial.