There is a problem that can occur when you are attempting to check all of your biases when contemplating a serious crime.
The risk is, while checking your biases you are exposing yourself to people who would then have the ability to help law enforcement turn you in for that serious crime. And you would presumably be aware of the fact that you can hardly let others capture you, because then you would know that there would be other things that you didn’t blow up as part of your plan to save the world because you weren’t secretive enough.
This means that by checking all of your biases you are boosting the chance of the world be destroyed if it turns out you weren’t biased. And it’s easy to convince yourself that you can’t risk that, so you can’t talk to other people about your plans.
But you can’t thoroughly check your biases by consulting yourself and no one else. It is entirely possible for you to be heavily deluding yourself, having gotten brain damage or gone insane.
So you’re left with the conflicting demands of “I need to talk with other people to verify this is accurate.” and “I need to keep this a secret, so I can implement it if it is accurate.”
As a side question, does it feel like this has a few points that are oddly similar to Pascal’s mugging to anyone else?
As an example, they both seem to have that aspect of “But you simply MUST do this, because the consequences are simply to great not do it, even after accounting for the probabilities?”
That’s not true about the confidentiality of priests… a priest has the same legal obligation to turn in someone that is a danger to themselves or others as a therapist.
Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.
Can. 1388 §1. A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; one who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the delict.
If you are convinced that, barring any biases, your calculated course of action is the right one, you could talk to anyone you trusted to be similarly convinced by your arguments. Either they will point out your errors and convince you that you shouldn’t act, or they will not discover any errors and agree to help you with your plans.
There is a problem that can occur when you are attempting to check all of your biases when contemplating a serious crime.
The risk is, while checking your biases you are exposing yourself to people who would then have the ability to help law enforcement turn you in for that serious crime. And you would presumably be aware of the fact that you can hardly let others capture you, because then you would know that there would be other things that you didn’t blow up as part of your plan to save the world because you weren’t secretive enough.
This means that by checking all of your biases you are boosting the chance of the world be destroyed if it turns out you weren’t biased. And it’s easy to convince yourself that you can’t risk that, so you can’t talk to other people about your plans.
But you can’t thoroughly check your biases by consulting yourself and no one else. It is entirely possible for you to be heavily deluding yourself, having gotten brain damage or gone insane.
So you’re left with the conflicting demands of “I need to talk with other people to verify this is accurate.” and “I need to keep this a secret, so I can implement it if it is accurate.”
As a side question, does it feel like this has a few points that are oddly similar to Pascal’s mugging to anyone else?
As an example, they both seem to have that aspect of “But you simply MUST do this, because the consequences are simply to great not do it, even after accounting for the probabilities?”
A catholic priest couldn’t turn you in, and a smart one probably knows a lot about some kinds of human biases.
That’s not true about the confidentiality of priests… a priest has the same legal obligation to turn in someone that is a danger to themselves or others as a therapist.
Doubt it. The Code of Canon Law states:
If you are convinced that, barring any biases, your calculated course of action is the right one, you could talk to anyone you trusted to be similarly convinced by your arguments. Either they will point out your errors and convince you that you shouldn’t act, or they will not discover any errors and agree to help you with your plans.