I’ve noticed this before, and I think it’s a wrong truth-seeking device on a technical level.
Basically, I’m really leery of reductio ad absurdums with statements that are inherently probabilistic in general, but especially when it comes to ethics.
A straightforward reductio ad absurdum goes:
Say we believe in P
P implies Q
Q is clearly wrong
Therefore, not P.
However, in philosophical ethics it’s more like
Say we believe in P
A seems reasonable
B seems reasonable
C seems kind of reasonable.
D seems almost reasonable if you squint a little, at least it’s more reasonable than P
E has a >50% chance of being right.
P and A and B and C and D and E implies Q
Q is an absurd/unintuitive conclusion.
Therefore, not P
The issue here is that most of the heavy lifting is done by appeals to conjunctions, and conflating >50% probabilities with absolute truths.
I’ve noticed this before, and I think it’s a wrong truth-seeking device on a technical level.
Basically, I’m really leery of reductio ad absurdums with statements that are inherently probabilistic in general, but especially when it comes to ethics.
A straightforward reductio ad absurdum goes:
Say we believe in P
P implies Q
Q is clearly wrong
Therefore, not P.
However, in philosophical ethics it’s more like
Say we believe in P
A seems reasonable
B seems reasonable
C seems kind of reasonable.
D seems almost reasonable if you squint a little, at least it’s more reasonable than P
E has a >50% chance of being right.
P and A and B and C and D and E implies Q
Q is an absurd/unintuitive conclusion.
Therefore, not P
The issue here is that most of the heavy lifting is done by appeals to conjunctions, and conflating >50% probabilities with absolute truths.