Am I missing something, or is #6 too easy to belong here?
It depends on what it means to “believe” something, and what “is good” means.
Case 1) Goods are good because and to thge extent to which they are valued
1a: If the belief-change were permanent, then it would be equivalent to a desire or drive, and the death of humans would be a finite subjective good, commensurable with other goods. Therefore, the belief would be true, but so would many other beliefs weighing contrarily.
1b: Otherwise—i.e. if it were the equivalent of normal habituation and therefore alterable—then it would be improbable to the extent that it disagreed with other judgments and past experience. Insofar as other people might want to translate subjective probabilities into binary true/false categories, the belief would be false.
Case 2) Good has absolute meaning independent of situations and/or the constitution of the rational being in question.
In this case, there is no possible answer—or, at best, the answer would only extend to marking out what a non-contradictory answer might be, a la Kant.
Am I missing something, or is #6 too easy to belong here?
It depends on what it means to “believe” something, and what “is good” means.
Case 1) Goods are good because and to thge extent to which they are valued
1a: If the belief-change were permanent, then it would be equivalent to a desire or drive, and the death of humans would be a finite subjective good, commensurable with other goods. Therefore, the belief would be true, but so would many other beliefs weighing contrarily.
1b: Otherwise—i.e. if it were the equivalent of normal habituation and therefore alterable—then it would be improbable to the extent that it disagreed with other judgments and past experience. Insofar as other people might want to translate subjective probabilities into binary true/false categories, the belief would be false.
Case 2) Good has absolute meaning independent of situations and/or the constitution of the rational being in question.
In this case, there is no possible answer—or, at best, the answer would only extend to marking out what a non-contradictory answer might be, a la Kant.