From: Dan Fabulich (daniel.fabulich@yale.edu)
Date: Fri Sep 10 1999 - 12:01:20 MDT
On Thu, 9 Sep 1999 hal@finney.org wrote:
> So I don't see that the potential existence of E* gives us any reason to
> follow any particular ethical system today.
Your argument is excellent. Moreover, it is in agreement with my own. :)
I do not argue that you should, in fact, follow ethical theory E over
ethical theory E'. That would in effect be saying that I've proven that
you should follow A over B, without knowing what A or B actually are.
Rather, I argue that the possibility "E* does not exist" should have no
effect AT ALL on ANY decision you make, including your choice of ethical
theories. Thus, it's always safe to assume E* exists, though not
necessarily safe to assume that E is a good approximation of E*.
Similarly, we can assume that good reasons exist for supporting one
ethical theory over another, since the reverse claim drops out of the
equation in a similar way. And good reasons for supporting those reasons.
And good reasons for supporting those reasons. ...
This argument shows that skepticism can be refuted on any given level of
argument; that we can/should assume that there is an arbitrarily long
chain of correct reasoning which leads us to the correct final conclusion,
but it does not tell us what those reasons are, or what the correct
conclusion is.
> Isn't it possible that studying ethics is objectivelly bad, according to
> E*? How can you justify any course of action, not knowing what E* says?
My argument doesn't attempt to show that you should study ethics, but
rather that you should believe that there is a correct way to rank
decisions; that it really does matter what you decide.
> This all smacks of Pascal's wager. He worshiped God so that he would be
> rewarded if God existed, knowing that all was pointless anyway if God
> didn't exist. The flaw is that he may be worshiping the wrong God. It
> seems that your reasoning is in danger of the same loophole.
I am familiar with Pascal's wager; the difference between Pascal's wager
and my argument is significant. He argued that one should worship the
Judeo-Christian God, falsely believing that the only two choices available
were to worship the Judeo-Christian God or to worship nothing at
all.
If I had an analogous argument, which I don't, I would argue instead that
there is a correct answer to the question of worship, but I would not
purport to know what that answer is. It could be Christianity, atheism,
Gnosticism, Buddhism, etc. But despite the plethora of possible answers,
an argument like my ethical argument would attempt to show that there is,
in fact, a correct answer. No more, no less.
-Dan
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-
e.e. cummings
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:06 MST