Your chosen method—refuting a rule with a counterexample—throws out all moral rules, since every moral theory has counterexamples. This includes common sense ethics—recall the protracted cross-cultural justification of slavery, for one upon thousands of instances. (Here construing “go with your gut dude” as a rule.)
If we were nihilists, we could sigh in relief and stop here. But we’re not—so what next? Clearly something not so rigid as rules.
You’re also underselling the mathematical results: as a nonconsequentialist, you will make incoherent actions if you don’t make sure that Harsanyi doesn’t bite your ethics. You’re free to deny one of the assumptions, but there ends the conversation.
Your chosen method—refuting a rule with a counterexample—throws out all moral rules, since every moral theory has counterexamples.
This sounds a lot like “every hypothesis can be eventually falsified with evidence, therefore, trying to falsify hypotheses rules out every hypothesis. So we shouldn’t try to falsify hypotheses.”
But we are Bayesians, are we not? If we are, we should update away from ethical principles when novel counterexamples are brought to our attention, with the magnitude of the update proportional to the unpleasantness of the counterexample.
Your chosen method—refuting a rule with a counterexample—throws out all moral rules, since every moral theory has counterexamples.
I’m not sure what exactly you mean by a moral rule, e.g. “Courage is better than cowardice, all else equal” doesn’t have any counterexamples. But for certain definitions of moral rule you should reject all moral rules as incorrect.
You’re free to deny one of the assumptions, but there ends the conversation.
Looking at the post, I’ll deny “My choices shouldn’t be focused on … how to pay down imagined debts I have to particular people, to society.” You have real debts to particular people. I don’t see how this makes ethics inappropriately “about my own self-actualization or self-image.”
Your chosen method—refuting a rule with a counterexample—throws out all moral rules, since every moral theory has counterexamples. This includes common sense ethics—recall the protracted cross-cultural justification of slavery, for one upon thousands of instances. (Here construing “go with your gut dude” as a rule.)
If we were nihilists, we could sigh in relief and stop here. But we’re not—so what next? Clearly something not so rigid as rules.
You’re also underselling the mathematical results: as a nonconsequentialist, you will make incoherent actions if you don’t make sure that Harsanyi doesn’t bite your ethics. You’re free to deny one of the assumptions, but there ends the conversation.
(All that said, I’m not a utilitarian.)
This sounds a lot like “every hypothesis can be eventually falsified with evidence, therefore, trying to falsify hypotheses rules out every hypothesis. So we shouldn’t try to falsify hypotheses.”
But we are Bayesians, are we not? If we are, we should update away from ethical principles when novel counterexamples are brought to our attention, with the magnitude of the update proportional to the unpleasantness of the counterexample.
Agreed
I’m not sure what exactly you mean by a moral rule, e.g. “Courage is better than cowardice, all else equal” doesn’t have any counterexamples. But for certain definitions of moral rule you should reject all moral rules as incorrect.
Looking at the post, I’ll deny “My choices shouldn’t be focused on … how to pay down imagined debts I have to particular people, to society.” You have real debts to particular people. I don’t see how this makes ethics inappropriately “about my own self-actualization or self-image.”