I too think that the logic of [1] is valid. I am going to ask Dagon on the other comment why he thinks that it is not even near a logical structure. As for [2] I was interested in finding out whether, in the case where we agree on the terms, the conclusion follows from the premise. But I think you are right; it is probably impossible to judge this on the abstract.
In terms of the argument itself It is kind of like Pascals Wager with the difference of framing it as a moral duty towards ‘meaning’ itself (since if meaning exists it—in my formulation—grounds the moral duty) instead of self interest as in Pascal’s Wager.
P.S: Interesting to see downvotes for a question that invites criticism… If you down voted the post yourself any constructive feedback of the reason why would be appreciated :)
Thank you for your comment.
I too think that the logic of [1] is valid. I am going to ask Dagon on the other comment why he thinks that it is not even near a logical structure. As for [2] I was interested in finding out whether, in the case where we agree on the terms, the conclusion follows from the premise. But I think you are right; it is probably impossible to judge this on the abstract.
In terms of the argument itself It is kind of like Pascals Wager with the difference of framing it as a moral duty towards ‘meaning’ itself (since if meaning exists it—in my formulation—grounds the moral duty) instead of self interest as in Pascal’s Wager.
P.S: Interesting to see downvotes for a question that invites criticism… If you down voted the post yourself any constructive feedback of the reason why would be appreciated :)