I find impartial consequentialism and indeterminate beliefs very well-motivated, and these combined with consequentialist bracketing seem to imply neartermism (as Kollin et al. (2025) argue), I think it’s plausible that metanormative bracketing implies neartermism.
Say I find ex post neartermism (Vasco’s view that our impact washes out, ex post, after say 100 years) more plausible than consequentialist bracketing being both correct and action-guiding.
My favorite normative view (impartial consequentialism + plausible epistemic principles + maximality) gives me two options. Either:
(a) long-term effects dominate, and I’m clueless.
(b) near-term effects dominate, and I know what to do (without having to use consequentialist bracketing, let’s assume).
Would you say that what dictates my view on (a)vs(b) is my uncertainty between different epistemic principles, such that I can dichotomize my favorite normative view based on the epistemic drivers of (a)vs(b)? (Such that, then, MNB allows me to bracket out the new normative view that implies (a) and bracket in the new normative view that implies (b), assuming no sensitivity to individuation.)
Would you say that what dictates my view on (a)vs(b) is my uncertainty between different epistemic principles
It seems pretty implausible to me that there are distinct normative principles that, combined with the principle of non-arbitrariness I mention in the “Problem 1” section, imply (b). Instead I suspect Vasco is reasoning about the implications of epistemic principles (applied to our evidence) in a way I’d find uncompelling even if I endorsed precise Bayesianism. So I think I’d answer “no” to your question. But I don’t understand Vasco’s view well enough to be confident.
Can you explain more why answering “no” makes metanormatively bracketing in consequentialist bracketing (a bit) arbitrary? My thinking is: Let E be epistemic principles that, among other things, require non-arbitrariness. (So, normative views that involve E might provide strong reasons for choice, all else equal.) If it’s sufficiently implausible that E would imply Vasco’s view, then E will still leave us clueless, because of insensitivity to mild sweetening.
I suspect Vasco is reasoning about the implications of epistemic principles (applied to our evidence) in a way I’d find uncompelling even if I endorsed precise Bayesianism.
Oh so for the sake of argument, assume the implications he sees are compelling. You are unsure about whether your good epistemic principles E imply (a) or (b).[1]
So then, the difference between (a) and (b) is purely empirical, and MNB does not allow me to compare (a) and (b), right? This is what I’d find a bit arbitrary, at first glance. The isolated fact that the difference between (a) and (b) is technically empirical and not normative doesn’t feel like a good reason to say that your “bracket in consequentialist bracketing” move is ok but not the “bracket in ex post neartermism” move (with my generous assumptions in favor of ex post neartermism).
I don’t mean to argue that this is a reasonable assumption. It’s just a useful one for me to understand what moves MNB does and does not allow. If you find this assumption hard to make, imagine that you learn that we likely are in simulation that is gonna shut down in 100 years and that the simulators aren’t watching us (so we don’t impact them).
So then, the difference between (a) and (b) is purely empirical, and MNB does not allow me to compare (a) and (b), right? This is what I’d find a bit arbitrary, at first glance.
Gotcha, thanks! Yeah, I think it’s fair to be somewhat suspicious of giving special status to “normative views”. I’m still sympathetic to doing so for the reasons I mention in the post (here). But it would be great to dig into this more.
Antonia found an intervention that reduces overall animal suffering in the near-term, but she’s not sure which is true between
L) the long-term effects dominate, but I don’t know what they overall imply, and I can’t ignore them (so I’m clueless).
N) neartermism thanks to bracketing out the long-term effects (so I should intervene).
Brian comes along and says he agrees with the above and subdivides L, this way:
L) the long-term effects dominate, but he doesn’t know what they overall imply, and he can’t ignore them (so he’s clueless).
L1) same, but he trusts his longtermist best guess that the intervention is bad, assuming pure negative utilitarianism (so he should not intervene).
L2) same but assuming negative-leaning utilitarianism (so he should not intervene).
L3) he trusts his longtermist best guess that the intervention is good, assuming classical utilitarianism (so he should intervene).
N) neartermism thanks to bracketing out the long-term effects (so he should intervene).
Antonia shares Brian’s above best guesses and normative uncertainty. They both totally agree. The only difference is that Brian specified normative sub-views.
Now, say Nuutti joins the party, agrees with these two, but recategorizes things this way:
L1) stubborn precise EV despite imprecision arguments + negative utilitarianism (we should not intervene)
O) all other plausible normative views (in sum, we’re clueless)
The MNB sceptic would say that Antonia grouping L1-3 together to form L is just as arbitrary as Nuutti grouping L2, L3, and N together to form O.[1]
Is your response: The former seems less arbitrary because
L1-3 share key epistemic principles and/or decision theory that make L an actual normative view (even though the moral theory part is imprecise). In contrast, L2, L3, and N have nothing in common, normatively that justifies grouping them against L1. It’d be too arbitrary to consider N + L2 + L3 as a normative view.
Normative views seem to be the most legitimate units to bracket over (e.g., more legit than empirical views). Making a comprehensive case for/against this would be nice, but I give some reasons for, in this section.
Say I find ex post neartermism (Vasco’s view that our impact washes out, ex post, after say 100 years) more plausible than consequentialist bracketing being both correct and action-guiding.
My favorite normative view (impartial consequentialism + plausible epistemic principles + maximality) gives me two options. Either:
(a) long-term effects dominate, and I’m clueless.
(b) near-term effects dominate, and I know what to do (without having to use consequentialist bracketing, let’s assume).
Would you say that what dictates my view on (a)vs(b) is my uncertainty between different epistemic principles, such that I can dichotomize my favorite normative view based on the epistemic drivers of (a)vs(b)? (Such that, then, MNB allows me to bracket out the new normative view that implies (a) and bracket in the new normative view that implies (b), assuming no sensitivity to individuation.)
If not, I find it a bit arbitrary that MNB allows your “bracket in consequentialist bracketing” move and not this “bracket in ex post neartermism” move.
It seems pretty implausible to me that there are distinct normative principles that, combined with the principle of non-arbitrariness I mention in the “Problem 1” section, imply (b). Instead I suspect Vasco is reasoning about the implications of epistemic principles (applied to our evidence) in a way I’d find uncompelling even if I endorsed precise Bayesianism. So I think I’d answer “no” to your question. But I don’t understand Vasco’s view well enough to be confident.
Can you explain more why answering “no” makes metanormatively bracketing in consequentialist bracketing (a bit) arbitrary? My thinking is: Let E be epistemic principles that, among other things, require non-arbitrariness. (So, normative views that involve E might provide strong reasons for choice, all else equal.) If it’s sufficiently implausible that E would imply Vasco’s view, then E will still leave us clueless, because of insensitivity to mild sweetening.
Oh so for the sake of argument, assume the implications he sees are compelling. You are unsure about whether your good epistemic principles E imply (a) or (b).[1]
So then, the difference between (a) and (b) is purely empirical, and MNB does not allow me to compare (a) and (b), right? This is what I’d find a bit arbitrary, at first glance. The isolated fact that the difference between (a) and (b) is technically empirical and not normative doesn’t feel like a good reason to say that your “bracket in consequentialist bracketing” move is ok but not the “bracket in ex post neartermism” move (with my generous assumptions in favor of ex post neartermism).
I don’t mean to argue that this is a reasonable assumption. It’s just a useful one for me to understand what moves MNB does and does not allow. If you find this assumption hard to make, imagine that you learn that we likely are in simulation that is gonna shut down in 100 years and that the simulators aren’t watching us (so we don’t impact them).
Gotcha, thanks! Yeah, I think it’s fair to be somewhat suspicious of giving special status to “normative views”. I’m still sympathetic to doing so for the reasons I mention in the post (here). But it would be great to dig into this more.
(Tangential but I guess from the above that you think the following is not another example where MNB is sensitive to the individuation of normative views, and I’d like to understand why. Nw at all if you don’t have the time to reply, tho.)
Antonia found an intervention that reduces overall animal suffering in the near-term, but she’s not sure which is true between
L) the long-term effects dominate, but I don’t know what they overall imply, and I can’t ignore them (so I’m clueless).
N) neartermism thanks to bracketing out the long-term effects (so I should intervene).
Brian comes along and says he agrees with the above and subdivides L, this way:
L) the long-term effects dominate, but he doesn’t know what they overall imply, and he can’t ignore them (so he’s clueless).
L1) same, but he trusts his longtermist best guess that the intervention is bad, assuming pure negative utilitarianism (so he should not intervene).
L2) same but assuming negative-leaning utilitarianism (so he should not intervene).
L3) he trusts his longtermist best guess that the intervention is good, assuming classical utilitarianism (so he should intervene).
N) neartermism thanks to bracketing out the long-term effects (so he should intervene).
Antonia shares Brian’s above best guesses and normative uncertainty. They both totally agree. The only difference is that Brian specified normative sub-views.
Now, say Nuutti joins the party, agrees with these two, but recategorizes things this way:
L1) stubborn precise EV despite imprecision arguments + negative utilitarianism (we should not intervene)
O) all other plausible normative views (in sum, we’re clueless)
The MNB sceptic would say that Antonia grouping L1-3 together to form L is just as arbitrary as Nuutti grouping L2, L3, and N together to form O.[1]
Is your response: The former seems less arbitrary because
L1-3 share key epistemic principles and/or decision theory that make L an actual normative view (even though the moral theory part is imprecise). In contrast, L2, L3, and N have nothing in common, normatively that justifies grouping them against L1. It’d be too arbitrary to consider N + L2 + L3 as a normative view.
Normative views seem to be the most legitimate units to bracket over (e.g., more legit than empirical views). Making a comprehensive case for/against this would be nice, but I give some reasons for, in this section.
With the consequentist-bracketing version of the individuation problem I present here, the bracketer can appeal to a “only value locations that have been identified can be bracketed in” principle. This saves them if this principle is sound. Here, this doesn’t save them. The normative theories have been identified in both cases.