P3 is a weirdly shaped claim to have as a premise. You’re not taking general claims about the epistemics of goal-directed agency and applying them to the specific case of impartially altruistic goals, instead you’re jumping straight to an absolutist contextual claim only for impartial altruism. Why would there be a bright-line rule of that shape? And your arguments for it (e.g. in response to Ngo at the end of the table) look pretty weak & scattered.
Possibly something like this could be said of the whole argument from the start, not just to P3.
You’re not taking general claims about the epistemics of goal-directed agency and applying them to the specific case of impartially altruistic goals
I’m confused — that’s exactly what I’m doing in the argument. P2 is the general claim “there are some conditions under which we can’t compare actions’ ‘expected’ consequences”, while P3 says “for the case of impartial altruism, in our actual epistemic situation, those conditions do hold”.
It would help to hear more specific critiques of my arguments for P3, in the posts themselves (and why you find my responses to Richard weak).
P3 is a weirdly shaped claim to have as a premise. You’re not taking general claims about the epistemics of goal-directed agency and applying them to the specific case of impartially altruistic goals, instead you’re jumping straight to an absolutist contextual claim only for impartial altruism. Why would there be a bright-line rule of that shape? And your arguments for it (e.g. in response to Ngo at the end of the table) look pretty weak & scattered.
Possibly something like this could be said of the whole argument from the start, not just to P3.
I’m confused — that’s exactly what I’m doing in the argument. P2 is the general claim “there are some conditions under which we can’t compare actions’ ‘expected’ consequences”, while P3 says “for the case of impartial altruism, in our actual epistemic situation, those conditions do hold”.
It would help to hear more specific critiques of my arguments for P3, in the posts themselves (and why you find my responses to Richard weak).