The philosophical ideal can still exert normative force even if no humans are spherical Bayesian reasoners on a frictionless plane. The disjunction (“it must either the case that”) is significant: it suggests that if you’re considering lying to someone, you may want to clarify to yourself whether and to what extent that’s because they’re an enemy or because you don’t respect them as an epistemic peer. Even if you end up choosing to lie, it’s with a different rationale and mindset than someone who’s never heard of the normative ideal and just thinks that white lies can be good sometimes.
Yes, this seems correct. With the added clarification that “respecting [someone] as an epistemic peer” is situational rather than a characteristic of the individual in question. It is not that there are people more epistemically advanced than me which I believe I should only ever tell the full truth to, and then people less epistemically advanced than me that I should lie to with absolute impunity whenever I start feeling like it. It depends on a particularized assessment of the moment at hand.
I would suspect that most regular people who tell white lies (for pro-social reasons, at least in their minds) generally do so in cases where they (mostly implicitly and subconsciously) determine that the other person would not react well to the truth, even if they don’t spell out the question in the terms you chose.
Is it the case that if there are two identically-irrational / -boundedly-rational agents, then sharing information between them must have positive value?
The philosophical ideal can still exert normative force even if no humans are spherical Bayesian reasoners on a frictionless plane. The disjunction (“it must either the case that”) is significant: it suggests that if you’re considering lying to someone, you may want to clarify to yourself whether and to what extent that’s because they’re an enemy or because you don’t respect them as an epistemic peer. Even if you end up choosing to lie, it’s with a different rationale and mindset than someone who’s never heard of the normative ideal and just thinks that white lies can be good sometimes.
Yes, this seems correct. With the added clarification that “respecting [someone] as an epistemic peer” is situational rather than a characteristic of the individual in question. It is not that there are people more epistemically advanced than me which I believe I should only ever tell the full truth to, and then people less epistemically advanced than me that I should lie to with absolute impunity whenever I start feeling like it. It depends on a particularized assessment of the moment at hand.
I would suspect that most regular people who tell white lies (for pro-social reasons, at least in their minds) generally do so in cases where they (mostly implicitly and subconsciously) determine that the other person would not react well to the truth, even if they don’t spell out the question in the terms you chose.
Is it the case that if there are two identically-irrational / -boundedly-rational agents, then sharing information between them must have positive value?