one should still support it under precise credences?
I’m saying that Elga’s argument doesn’t tell us to have precise credences in the first place. It only tells us “you should commit to act in a way that avoids sure losses”.
That makes sense. However, if one cannot make such a commitment, or finds its implications undesirable, Elsa’s argument should update one away from unsharp credences (even if one ends up preferring these all things considered)?
I’m saying that Elga’s argument doesn’t tell us to have precise credences in the first place. It only tells us “you should commit to act in a way that avoids sure losses”.
That makes sense. However, if one cannot make such a commitment, or finds its implications undesirable, Elsa’s argument should update one away from unsharp credences (even if one ends up preferring these all things considered)?
What do you think of my arguments under “If they aren’t capable of C”, in the OP?
I agree with Claude’s 4th point.