Whether that’s rational in the sense of being logically consistent is debatable. Arguments like Parfit’s are typically not considered convincing in making people a lot more utilitarian, including to me, but that could be caused by motivated reasoning.
I think partially motivated reasoning but a lot of it is a defense mechanism. Like if somebody you’ve never met before tells you to donate half your money to charity, you might (correctly!) infer that they do not have your best interests at heart. Regardless of whether they’re a fancy-sounding Oxford academic, a carpenter’s stepson from the Middle East, or your local internet philosophy & rationality blogger.
So I’m not at all surprised that people aren’t convinced by these arguments, nor do I (at a sufficiently high level of abstraction) believe that they ought to be.
When I say motivated reasoning, do you think that means it’s conscious and strategic? I worry it’s used that way more than the academic and IMO more important usage.
I think partially motivated reasoning but a lot of it is a defense mechanism. Like if somebody you’ve never met before tells you to donate half your money to charity, you might (correctly!) infer that they do not have your best interests at heart. Regardless of whether they’re a fancy-sounding Oxford academic, a carpenter’s stepson from the Middle East, or your local internet philosophy & rationality blogger.
So I’m not at all surprised that people aren’t convinced by these arguments, nor do I (at a sufficiently high level of abstraction) believe that they ought to be.
Motivated reasoning is a defense mechanism.
Motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, and AI risk theory
When I say motivated reasoning, do you think that means it’s conscious and strategic? I worry it’s used that way more than the academic and IMO more important usage.