First to be clear I have not closely read all the series or even this one completely—just feeling sick today so not focused. However, I did have a thought I wanted to get out. May have been well addressed already.
It seems that we are perhaps missing an element here. Is it possible that even if one is working, from a entire corporate structure setting, in a moral maze that various levels and don’t really impose the same problems. Thinking of this as a setting where we see the whole as one large pond. However, what if rather than one large pond what we have is actually a collection or connected smaller ponds and the maze really only applies in some and at the collection of ponds level.
Is there something of a fallacy of composition error potential here? The whole is a moral maze but many of the ponds it is comprised of lack that character?
If so then it may well be possible to escape the maze without having to quit the job.
Just a passing though here. Is probability really the correct term? I wonder if what we do in these types of cases is more an assessment of our confidence in our ability to extrapolate from past experience into new, and often completely different, situations.
If so that is really not a probability about the event we’re thinking about—though perhaps is could be seen as one about our ability to make “wild” guesses (and yes, that is hyperbole) about stuff we don’t really know anything about. Event there I’m not sure probability is the correct term.
With regard to the supernatural things, that tends to be something of a hot button to a lot of people I think. Perhaps a better casting would be things we have some faith in—which tend to be things we must infer rather than have any real evidence providing some proof. I think these change over time—we’ve had faith in a number of theories that have been later proven—electrons for example or other sub atomic particles.
But then what about dark matter and energy? The models seem to say we need that but as yet we cannot find it. So we have faith in the model and look to prove that faith was justified by finding the dark stuff. But one might as why we have that faith rather than being skeptical of the model, even while acknowledging it has proven of value and helped expand knowledge. I think we have better discussion about faith in this context (perhaps) that if we get into religion and supernatural subjects (though arguably we should treat them the same as the faith we have in other models to my view).