Thank you for this reply. I can see your point clearer. Your premise is the absurdity of the extremity, right? I accept this opinion and I’ll keep it in the back of my head (and update my beliefs accordingly). I think my previous heuristic is that “if something is true then it must be true even in corner cases”. For example, even number plus even number makes even. When regular situation teaches 2+4=6 and 0+2=2, my “taking to the extreme” means testing the boundary of this claim: how about 0+1000000? How about −2+2? How about −99998+46464? They are all still even numbers.
A supererogatory act is one that it is praiseworthy to do, but which is not required. It is action over and above the call of duty. Is there any such thing?
Peter Singer and some EAs say no. Supererogation is a contradiction in terms. The good that you can do is the good that you must do. At every moment you must be doing the best thing you possibly can. All the obvious objections are folded into the basic injunction. You don’t know the best thing? Then the best thing is to find out. You’ll burn out? Then take some R&R, but only as much as needed to carry on the Work. It’s an impossible standard? Yes, but it’s the right standard, you just don’t want to because it’s hard. But—? Denied. You must make of yourself a slave to the good. “O feet happily fettered on the road to salvation!” While you are sleeping, the world is burning! You cannot ascend the torrent of your sins! Nothing for yourself, everything for the cause! Jam tomorrow? Jam never! Your life must be a desert! You are nothing, the cause is everything! Smile! The torture will continue until you comply. You can’t reason with it, you can’t bargain with it, and it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.
My opinion: I disagree with [Peter Singer and some EAs]. I think supererogation exists. The
WHEN PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING, SLEEPING IS A SIN
quote signals that my decision to sleep is a sin, and I accept that. I, however, do not accept that I’m obliged to do no sin. In this sense, almost all decisions in my life is sinful. Some are more sinful than others, and I try to go to the least sinful ones, as much as I have the capacity to think and reason about it. In this sense, I think I’m hopping on the crazy train going straight to hell, but also no, I don’t think I can’t bargain with it. The torture will not stop ever until I am dead, but I think I can refuse to let myself be controlled by such torture.
And therefore, Glaucon, is it not clear that the proper choice must always be the best possible choice that you can make? Is not that what we mean by “best”?
I cannot disagree with that, Socrates.
And therefore, Glaucon, you must agree that you are obliged to follow the Gospel According To Insanity Wolf to its very end?
No, I agree that the proper choice is always the better choice, but I disagree that the proper choice is always the best choice, and so I don’t think I’m obliged to follow the Gospel According To Insanity Wolf to its very end.
More formally, let be a bounded increasing sequence, where denotes the “goodness” of the -th action. The crazy train going to hell argues that since , it is unacceptable to stop at the -th decision! One must proceed to a better decision! In this sense, I’m not hopping into this crazy train. My conclusion would rather be that: “since , but the constraint (my cognitive resource, sleep, food, etc) requires , so I’ll only search the finite space for ”. In the end, I’m going to be more or less suboptimal. The difference is my sin, and I’m going to happily accept that. I’m not going to throw it away. In simpler words, my process is: within my resources limit , what best action would I be able to choose to maximize . The crazy train sets , and I do not. I guess this might be how I interpret the absurdity of the extremity. I, however, refuse the stronger claim, that “since the crazy train goes to hell, reject the design choice of entirely and just come up with another design choice, say, only”.
In conclusion, I accept your caution to “not follow the Insanity Wolf indefinitely”, while still retaining my decision to “hear the wolf out, and choose whatever I believe is best subject to the local constraints”.
Thank you for this reply. I can see your point clearer. Your premise is the absurdity of the extremity, right? I accept this opinion and I’ll keep it in the back of my head (and update my beliefs accordingly). I think my previous heuristic is that “if something is true then it must be true even in corner cases”. For example, even number plus even number makes even. When regular situation teaches 2+4=6 and 0+2=2, my “taking to the extreme” means testing the boundary of this claim: how about 0+1000000? How about −2+2? How about −99998+46464? They are all still even numbers.
My opinion: I disagree with [Peter Singer and some EAs]. I think supererogation exists. The
quote signals that my decision to sleep is a sin, and I accept that. I, however, do not accept that I’m obliged to do no sin. In this sense, almost all decisions in my life is sinful. Some are more sinful than others, and I try to go to the least sinful ones, as much as I have the capacity to think and reason about it. In this sense, I think I’m hopping on the crazy train going straight to hell, but also no, I don’t think I can’t bargain with it. The torture will not stop ever until I am dead, but I think I can refuse to let myself be controlled by such torture.
No, I agree that the proper choice is always the better choice, but I disagree that the proper choice is always the best choice, and so I don’t think I’m obliged to follow the Gospel According To Insanity Wolf to its very end.
More formally, let
In conclusion, I accept your caution to “not follow the Insanity Wolf indefinitely”, while still retaining my decision to “hear the wolf out, and choose whatever I believe is best subject to the local constraints”.