You’re confusing ends with means, terminal goals with instrumental goals, morality with decision theory, and about a dozen other ways of expressing the same thing. It doesn’t matter what you consider “good”, because for any fixed definition of “good”, there are going to be optimal and suboptimal methods of achieving goodness. Winning is simply the task of identifying and carrying out an optimal, rather than suboptimal, method.
If there are objectively correct and false values, then it matters to the epistemic rationalist which subjective values they have, because they might be wrong. (it also matters to the ER whether values are subjective).
Epistemic and instrumental rationality have never been the same thing. “Rationality is winning” cannot define them both, but and, as it happens, only defines IR.
You’re confusing ends with means, terminal goals with instrumental goals, morality with decision theory, and about a dozen other ways of expressing the same thing. It doesn’t matter what you consider “good”, because for any fixed definition of “good”, there are going to be optimal and suboptimal methods of achieving goodness. Winning is simply the task of identifying and carrying out an optimal, rather than suboptimal, method.
If there are objectively correct and false values, then it matters to the epistemic rationalist which subjective values they have, because they might be wrong. (it also matters to the ER whether values are subjective).
Epistemic and instrumental rationality have never been the same thing. “Rationality is winning” cannot define them both, but and, as it happens, only defines IR.