However, unless a galactic overlord designed the universe to please homo sapien rationalists, I don’t see any compelling rational reason to believe this to be the case.
Except that we are free to adopt any version of rationality that wins. Rationality should be responsive to a given universe design, not the other way around.
I don’t think your argument applies to jacoblytes’ argument. Jacoblytes claims that there is no reason for “rational” to equal “(morally/ethically) right”, unless an intelligent designer designed the universe in line with our values.
So it’s not about winning versus losing. It’s that unless the rules of the game are set up just in a certain way, then winning may entail causing suffering to others (e.g. to our rivals).
My writing in these comments has not been perfectly clear, but Nebu you have nailed one point that I was trying to make: “there is no guarantee that morally good actions are beneficial”.
The Christian morality is interesting, here. Christians admit up front that following their religion may lead to persecution and suffering. Their God was tortured and killed, after all. They don’t claim that what is good will be pleasant, as the rationalists do. To that degree, the Christians seem more honest and open-minded. Perhaps this is just a function of Christianity being an old religion and having the time to work out the philosophical kinks.
Of course, they make up for it by offering infinite bliss in the next life, which is cheating. But Christians do have a more honest view of this world in some ways.
Maybe we conflate true, good, and prudent because our “religion” is a hard sell otherwise. If we admitted that true and morally right things may be harmful, our pitch would become “Believe the truth, do what is good, and you may become miserable. There is no guarantee that our philosophy will help you in this life, and there is no next life”. That’s a hard sell. So we rationalists cheat by not examining this possibility.
There is some truth to the Christian criticism that Atheists are closed-minded and biased, too.
I don’t think your argument applies to jacoblytes’ argument. Jacoblytes claims that there is no reason for “rational” to equal “(morally/ethically) right”, unless an intelligent designer designed the universe in line with our values.
So it’s not about winning versus losing. It’s that unless the rules of the game are set up just in a certain way, then winning may entail causing suffering to others (e.g. to our rivals).
My writing in these comments has not been perfectly clear, but Nebu you have nailed one point that I was trying to make: “there is no guarantee that morally good actions are beneficial”.
The Christian morality is interesting, here. Christians admit up front that following their religion may lead to persecution and suffering. Their God was tortured and killed, after all. They don’t claim that what is good will be pleasant, as the rationalists do. To that degree, the Christians seem more honest and open-minded. Perhaps this is just a function of Christianity being an old religion and having the time to work out the philosophical kinks.
Of course, they make up for it by offering infinite bliss in the next life, which is cheating. But Christians do have a more honest view of this world in some ways.
Maybe we conflate true, good, and prudent because our “religion” is a hard sell otherwise. If we admitted that true and morally right things may be harmful, our pitch would become “Believe the truth, do what is good, and you may become miserable. There is no guarantee that our philosophy will help you in this life, and there is no next life”. That’s a hard sell. So we rationalists cheat by not examining this possibility.
There is some truth to the Christian criticism that Atheists are closed-minded and biased, too.