“There is a non-zero chance of one correct ethical system existing, as long as that’s there, I’m free to believe it”, or what?
If there is a system of objective morality based on reason, then I am rationally compelled to believe it.
No Sir, if you insist there is any basis whatsoever to stake your “one ethics to rule them all” claim on, you argue it’s more likely than not.
My actual claim, for the third time, is that relativism is not obviously true and realism is not obviously false. That does not require “more likely to be right than wrong”.
I do not stake my belief on absolute certainties, that’s counter to all the tenets of rationality, Bayes, updating on evidence et al.
Neither do I. I never said anything of the kind. You keep trying to shoehorn what I am saying into your preconceived notion of Arguing With a Theist. Please don’t.
My argument is clear. Different agents deem different courses of actions to be good or bad.
True but irrelevant. Doesn’t prove relativism.
There is a basis (such as Aumann’s) for rational agents to converge on isomorphic descriptions of the world. There is no known, or readily conceivable, basis for rational agents to all converge on the same course of action.
That is nothing but gainsaying my argument. I have sketched how rational agents could become persuaded of rationally based ethics as they are of any other rational proposition.
On the contrary, that would entail that e.g. world-eating AIs that are also smarter than any humans, individual or collectively, cannot possibly exist.
Yep. I think Clipper arguments are contestable.
There are no laws of physics preventing their existence—or construction [ of world eating AIs].
There are laws of logic preventing the conjunction of “is hyper rational” and “arbitrarily ignores rationally compelling clams”.
So we should presume that they can exist. If their rational capability is greater than our own, we should try to adopt world eating, since they’d have the better claim (being smarter and all) on having the correct ethics, no?
Show me one, and I’ll consider it. But why should I abandon my present beliefs just because a hyperratioanl agent might believe something else? A hyperrational agent might believe anything else. It cancels out. A la Pascal’s Wager.
Neither do I. I never said anything of the kind. You keep trying to shoehorn what I am saying into your preconceived notion of Arguing With a Theist. Please don’t.
Upvoted just for this, and also for responding civilly and persuasively to Kawoomba’s … Kawoombaing.
″ we should believe the Bible because the Bible is correct about many things that can be proven independently, this vouches for the veracity of the whole book, and therefore we should believe it even when it can’t be independently proven”
.. which,even as the improved version of, a straw man argument is still pretty weak. The Bible is a compendium of short books written by a number of people at disparate periods of time. The argument would work much better about a more cohesive work, such as the Koran....
(No, Kawoomba, I did not admit to being a Muslim...)
Well, it’s not an argument I’d personally make in this case (for roughly the reasons you outline) but it’s not an argument that’s trivially wrong from the outset; you have to actually engage in biblical scholarship to understand the flaw.
If there is a system of objective morality based on reason, then I am rationally compelled to believe it.
My actual claim, for the third time, is that relativism is not obviously true and realism is not obviously false. That does not require “more likely to be right than wrong”.
Neither do I. I never said anything of the kind. You keep trying to shoehorn what I am saying into your preconceived notion of Arguing With a Theist. Please don’t.
True but irrelevant. Doesn’t prove relativism.
That is nothing but gainsaying my argument. I have sketched how rational agents could become persuaded of rationally based ethics as they are of any other rational proposition.
Yep. I think Clipper arguments are contestable.
There are laws of logic preventing the conjunction of “is hyper rational” and “arbitrarily ignores rationally compelling clams”.
Show me one, and I’ll consider it. But why should I abandon my present beliefs just because a hyperratioanl agent might believe something else? A hyperrational agent might believe anything else. It cancels out. A la Pascal’s Wager.
Upvoted just for this, and also for responding civilly and persuasively to Kawoomba’s … Kawoombaing.
Also, I think you might like this relevant link. I know I did.
I did. But I was a bit puzzled by this,..
″ we should believe the Bible because the Bible is correct about many things that can be proven independently, this vouches for the veracity of the whole book, and therefore we should believe it even when it can’t be independently proven”
.. which,even as the improved version of, a straw man argument is still pretty weak. The Bible is a compendium of short books written by a number of people at disparate periods of time. The argument would work much better about a more cohesive work, such as the Koran....
(No, Kawoomba, I did not admit to being a Muslim...)
Well, it’s not an argument I’d personally make in this case (for roughly the reasons you outline) but it’s not an argument that’s trivially wrong from the outset; you have to actually engage in biblical scholarship to understand the flaw.
And at least it’s not circular.