Executive summary: The author argues that decision theory should not start from strong intuitions about what one should choose and then justify them, but instead should ground choices in independently compelling reasons, using verdict-level intuitions only to help discover those reasons.
Key points:
The author claims that a “verdict-level intuition” (a brute sense that one should choose a particular action) is not itself a reason, because such a verdict already presupposes that there are underlying reasons for that choice.
They argue that decision theory should proceed by identifying candidate reasons suggested by intuitions and then evaluating those reasons on their own merits, rather than treating intuitions as direct justification.
The author contends that reflective equilibrium, when interpreted as allowing mutual justification between intuitions and principles, still relies on the same mistaken use of verdict-level intuitions as justificatory.
In cases like Pascal’s mugging, the correct method is to assess reasons such as whether utility should be bounded, rather than inferring those reasons from the intuition not to pay.
The author argues that verdict-level intuitions are weak as predictors of unarticulated good reasons, especially in domains with poor feedback and where hard-to-articulate reasons are involved.
They suggest that this methodological point generalizes beyond decision theory to ethics and epistemology, where brute intuitions about conclusions should likewise be replaced with analysis of underlying reasons.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, andcontact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: The author argues that decision theory should not start from strong intuitions about what one should choose and then justify them, but instead should ground choices in independently compelling reasons, using verdict-level intuitions only to help discover those reasons.
Key points:
The author claims that a “verdict-level intuition” (a brute sense that one should choose a particular action) is not itself a reason, because such a verdict already presupposes that there are underlying reasons for that choice.
They argue that decision theory should proceed by identifying candidate reasons suggested by intuitions and then evaluating those reasons on their own merits, rather than treating intuitions as direct justification.
The author contends that reflective equilibrium, when interpreted as allowing mutual justification between intuitions and principles, still relies on the same mistaken use of verdict-level intuitions as justificatory.
In cases like Pascal’s mugging, the correct method is to assess reasons such as whether utility should be bounded, rather than inferring those reasons from the intuition not to pay.
The author argues that verdict-level intuitions are weak as predictors of unarticulated good reasons, especially in domains with poor feedback and where hard-to-articulate reasons are involved.
They suggest that this methodological point generalizes beyond decision theory to ethics and epistemology, where brute intuitions about conclusions should likewise be replaced with analysis of underlying reasons.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.