I agree with this. I wasnât trying to make a hard distinction between empirical and moral worldviews. (Not sure if there are better words than âmeansâ and âendsâ here.)
I think youâve clarified it for me. It seems to me that impact certificate trades have little downside when there is persistent, intractable disagreement. But in other cases, deciding to trade rather than to attempt to update each other may leave updates on the table. Thatâs the situation Iâm concerned about.
For context, I was imagining a trade with an anonymous partner, in a situation where you have reason to believe you have more information about org A than they do (because you work there).
In the case where the other party is anonymous, how could you hope to update each other? (i.e. you seem to be arguing against anonymity, not against selling impact certificates)
Sure, I agree that if theyâre anonymous forever you canât do much. But that was just the generating context; Iâm not arguing only against anonymity.
Iâm arguing against impact certificate trading as a *wholesale replacement* for attempting to update each other. If you are trading certificates with someone, you are deferring to their views on what to do, which is fine, but itâs important to know youâre doing that and to have a decent understanding of why you differ.
If you are trading certificates with someone, you are deferring to their views on what to do
I think this is meaningfully wrong; at least the sense in which you are deferring is not stronger than the sense in which employees are deferring to their employerâs views on what to do (i.e. itâs not an epistemic deferral but a deferral to authority).
I agree with this. I wasnât trying to make a hard distinction between empirical and moral worldviews. (Not sure if there are better words than âmeansâ and âendsâ here.)
I think youâve clarified it for me. It seems to me that impact certificate trades have little downside when there is persistent, intractable disagreement. But in other cases, deciding to trade rather than to attempt to update each other may leave updates on the table. Thatâs the situation Iâm concerned about.
For context, I was imagining a trade with an anonymous partner, in a situation where you have reason to believe you have more information about org A than they do (because you work there).
In the case where the other party is anonymous, how could you hope to update each other? (i.e. you seem to be arguing against anonymity, not against selling impact certificates)
Sure, I agree that if theyâre anonymous forever you canât do much. But that was just the generating context; Iâm not arguing only against anonymity.
Iâm arguing against impact certificate trading as a *wholesale replacement* for attempting to update each other. If you are trading certificates with someone, you are deferring to their views on what to do, which is fine, but itâs important to know youâre doing that and to have a decent understanding of why you differ.
I think this is meaningfully wrong; at least the sense in which you are deferring is not stronger than the sense in which employees are deferring to their employerâs views on what to do (i.e. itâs not an epistemic deferral but a deferral to authority).
âThe sense in which employees are deferring to their employerâs views on what to doâ sounds fine to me, thatâs all I meant to say.