All the previous points are interesting, but I think they’re besides the point that EY (and probably MM) is trying to make.
It is not about conflicting terminal values. It is about never losing sight of terminal value(s) behind the current instrumental value(s) one is pursuing.
You don’t parry for the sake of parrying, you have (an) ulterior motive(s). Same for opening car doors or rooting out biases.
All the previous points are interesting, but I think they’re besides the point that EY (and probably MM) is trying to make.
It is not about conflicting terminal values. It is about never losing sight of terminal value(s) behind the current instrumental value(s) one is pursuing.
You don’t parry for the sake of parrying, you have (an) ulterior motive(s). Same for opening car doors or rooting out biases.