comparing cluelessness world preferences with non-cluelessness world preferences
To decide whether you should act based on your cluelessness world preferences or your non-cluelessness world preferences, you’d have to use evidence (either empirical or theoretical) for which world you’re in.
But an ordinary consequentialist decision-making process would already take this evidence into account. (I think cluelessness-believers sometimes strawman cluelessness-skeptics and assume that they haven’t thought of this or wouldn’t update on such evidence.)
I think a more interesting crux is that cluelessness advocates believe that cluelessness undermines consequentialism while leaving deontology or virtue ethics relatively unscathed, but it seems to me that all the cluelessness arguments against consequentialism also undermine other decision-making systems as well.
To decide whether you should act based on your cluelessness world preferences or your non-cluelessness world preferences, you’d have to use evidence (either empirical or theoretical) for which world you’re in.
But an ordinary consequentialist decision-making process would already take this evidence into account. (I think cluelessness-believers sometimes strawman cluelessness-skeptics and assume that they haven’t thought of this or wouldn’t update on such evidence.)
I think a more interesting crux is that cluelessness advocates believe that cluelessness undermines consequentialism while leaving deontology or virtue ethics relatively unscathed, but it seems to me that all the cluelessness arguments against consequentialism also undermine other decision-making systems as well.
“but it seems to me that all the cluelessness arguments against consequentialism also undermine other decision-making systems as well.”
This seems important. Why do you think that?