One of the only good scenarios that I can think of where this response to cluelessness makes sense, is if a person subscribes to moral realism. And even then, the arguments for moral uncertainty seem too compelling to me. Do you know of any person that is not skeptical of cluelessness?
My take is that, if you really try to look at it from first principles, most will arrive at the conclusion that it is not possible to calculate the EV of any action for us humans. The rest is just cope because one is not willing to give up on ones EA identity and all of the sacrifices you have done. Sunk-cost fallacy is just too big of an obstacle.
Yes, if there is a moral theory that is objectively correct, then one should in principle be able to translate that moral theory into a framework that helps us calculate EV. But since we are not omniscient, that just does seem impossible. But in combination with the principle that we can’t understand the downstream effect of our actions in the long-term, I don’t understand how somebody can be skeptical of cluelessness.
I know this comment does not directly address your initial prompt, but I thought I’d rather post it than not. Thank you for sharing!
But in combination with the principle that we can’t understand the downstream effect of our actions in the long-term, I don’t understand how somebody can be skeptical of cluelessness.
One of the only good scenarios that I can think of where this response to cluelessness makes sense, is if a person subscribes to moral realism. And even then, the arguments for moral uncertainty seem too compelling to me. Do you know of any person that is not skeptical of cluelessness?
My take is that, if you really try to look at it from first principles, most will arrive at the conclusion that it is not possible to calculate the EV of any action for us humans. The rest is just cope because one is not willing to give up on ones EA identity and all of the sacrifices you have done. Sunk-cost fallacy is just too big of an obstacle.
Yes, if there is a moral theory that is objectively correct, then one should in principle be able to translate that moral theory into a framework that helps us calculate EV. But since we are not omniscient, that just does seem impossible. But in combination with the principle that we can’t understand the downstream effect of our actions in the long-term, I don’t understand how somebody can be skeptical of cluelessness.
I know this comment does not directly address your initial prompt, but I thought I’d rather post it than not. Thank you for sharing!
(You might find this discussion helpful.)