We want to be able to point at Elsa’s case of value change and argue that it is problematic and should be prevented, and we want to be able to say that Daniel’s case of value change is fine and does not need to be prevented, without in either case basing our argumentation on whether or not loving jazz is a morally acceptable or not. As such, I argue that the relevant difference we are picking up on here pertains to the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the value change process (in the sense I’ve described it above).
Is it really the relevant difference?
I think that there could be cases of acceptable illegitimate value change; that is, if both current I and I-as-in-CEV (in the future, knowing more, etc) would endorse the change, but it were done without a way to course-correct it. Metaphor: imagine you had to walk over a hanging bridge so that you couldn’t stop in the middle at risk of injury.
So, in my opinion legitimacy can be based on nature of value change only, but acceptability is also based on the opinion of person in question.
Yeah interesting point. I do see the pull of the argument. In particular the example seems well chosen—where the general form seems to be something like: we can think of cases where our agent can be said to be better off (according to some reasonable standards/form some reasonable vantage point) if the agent can make themselves be committed to continue doing a thing/undergoing a change for at least a certain amount of time.
That said, I think there are also some problems with it. For example, I’m wary of reifying “I-as-in-CEV” more than what is warranted. For one, I don’t know whether there is a single coherent “I-as-in-CEV” or whether there could be several; for two, how should I apply this argument practically speaking given that I don’t know what “I-as-in-CEV” would consider acceptable.
I think there is some sense in which proposing to use legitimacy as criterion has a flavour of “limited ambition”—using it will in fact mean that you will sometimes miss out of making value changes that would have been “good/acceptable” from various vantage points (e.g. legitimacy would say NO to pressing the button that would magically make everyone in the world peaceful/against war (unless the button involves some sophisticated process that allows you to back out legitimacy for everyone involved)). At the same time, I am wary we cannot give up on legitimacy without risking much worse fates, and as such, I feel currently fairly compelled to opt for legitimacy form an intertemporal perspective.
Is it really the relevant difference?
I think that there could be cases of acceptable illegitimate value change; that is, if both current I and I-as-in-CEV (in the future, knowing more, etc) would endorse the change, but it were done without a way to course-correct it. Metaphor: imagine you had to walk over a hanging bridge so that you couldn’t stop in the middle at risk of injury.
So, in my opinion legitimacy can be based on nature of value change only, but acceptability is also based on the opinion of person in question.
Yeah interesting point. I do see the pull of the argument. In particular the example seems well chosen—where the general form seems to be something like: we can think of cases where our agent can be said to be better off (according to some reasonable standards/form some reasonable vantage point) if the agent can make themselves be committed to continue doing a thing/undergoing a change for at least a certain amount of time.
That said, I think there are also some problems with it. For example, I’m wary of reifying “I-as-in-CEV” more than what is warranted. For one, I don’t know whether there is a single coherent “I-as-in-CEV” or whether there could be several; for two, how should I apply this argument practically speaking given that I don’t know what “I-as-in-CEV” would consider acceptable.
I think there is some sense in which proposing to use legitimacy as criterion has a flavour of “limited ambition”—using it will in fact mean that you will sometimes miss out of making value changes that would have been “good/acceptable” from various vantage points (e.g. legitimacy would say NO to pressing the button that would magically make everyone in the world peaceful/against war (unless the button involves some sophisticated process that allows you to back out legitimacy for everyone involved)). At the same time, I am wary we cannot give up on legitimacy without risking much worse fates, and as such, I feel currently fairly compelled to opt for legitimacy form an intertemporal perspective.