But … there is a difference between “something that actually is bad, and something I just think is bad.” If Omega told me sacrificing a child was the best option by my preferences, I would do so (or at least accept that I should; I would probably experience a lot of akrasia.) Wouldn’t you?
But if the answer to “how do I tell the difference?” is that I ask the entity who is making the request in the first place, we’ve now achieved full epistemic closure.
That is: if I don’t know whether Omega tells the truth or not, and I don’t know whether Omega has my best interests in mind or not, and Omega tells me to sacrifice a child, I probably wouldn’t sacrifice the child. Would you?
More generally, there is a big difference between “what ought I do, if X is the case?” and “what decision will the decision procedure that I ought to implement make, given non-zero but uncompelling evidence that X is the case?” Thought experiments often ask the former, but the latter is more relevant to my actual life.
But if the answer to “how do I tell the difference?” is that I ask the entity who is making the request in the first place, we’ve now achieved full epistemic closure.
I assume she expected you to ask God, y’know, now, not immediately after something claiming to be Him appeared and ordered you to kill ’em all. (Presumably asking Him “wait, are you sure killing children is a good idea?” would be met with a “yes”. Or a thunderbolt.)
Sure, that’s probably true. I don’t see what difference it makes, though.
I mean, OK, suppose I wait an hour, or a day, or a week, or however long I decide to wait, and I ask again, and a Voice says “Yes, kill ’em all.” Do I believe it’s God now? Why?
Conversely, I wait however long I decide to wait and I ask again and a Voice says “No, don’t kill ’em.” Do I believe that’s God? Why?
Do I ask a dozen times and take the most common answer?
None of those seem reasonable. It seems to me that on her account, what I ought to do is rely on my judgment of right and wrong rather than obeying the Voice, since the Voice is unreliable.
Which I completely agree with, but it didn’t seem to be what she was saying more generally.
I meant that if you get contradictory answers to your previous question, then you can safely assume that one of the Voices isn’t God—and I guess you should go with the one with the best track record? [EDIT: based on your own judgement.] We don’t seem to disagree on anything, anyway.
But … there is a difference between “something that actually is bad, and something I just think is bad.” If Omega told me sacrificing a child was the best option by my preferences, I would do so (or at least accept that I should; I would probably experience a lot of akrasia.) Wouldn’t you?
There absolutely is a difference, yes.
But if the answer to “how do I tell the difference?” is that I ask the entity who is making the request in the first place, we’ve now achieved full epistemic closure.
That is: if I don’t know whether Omega tells the truth or not, and I don’t know whether Omega has my best interests in mind or not, and Omega tells me to sacrifice a child, I probably wouldn’t sacrifice the child. Would you?
More generally, there is a big difference between “what ought I do, if X is the case?” and “what decision will the decision procedure that I ought to implement make, given non-zero but uncompelling evidence that X is the case?” Thought experiments often ask the former, but the latter is more relevant to my actual life.
I assume she expected you to ask God, y’know, now, not immediately after something claiming to be Him appeared and ordered you to kill ’em all. (Presumably asking Him “wait, are you sure killing children is a good idea?” would be met with a “yes”. Or a thunderbolt.)
Sure, that’s probably true. I don’t see what difference it makes, though.
I mean, OK, suppose I wait an hour, or a day, or a week, or however long I decide to wait, and I ask again, and a Voice says “Yes, kill ’em all.” Do I believe it’s God now? Why?
Conversely, I wait however long I decide to wait and I ask again and a Voice says “No, don’t kill ’em.” Do I believe that’s God? Why?
Do I ask a dozen times and take the most common answer?
None of those seem reasonable. It seems to me that on her account, what I ought to do is rely on my judgment of right and wrong rather than obeying the Voice, since the Voice is unreliable.
Which I completely agree with, but it didn’t seem to be what she was saying more generally.
I meant that if you get contradictory answers to your previous question, then you can safely assume that one of the Voices isn’t God—and I guess you should go with the one with the best track record? [EDIT: based on your own judgement.] We don’t seem to disagree on anything, anyway.
Agreed with that much, certainly.