Hello my mortal enemy, (…nah j/k)
Yes, my post was long—but I highlighted the arguments you needed to address in blue, put them in syllogistic form so that they’d be easy to recognize and the assumptions explicit, and as far as I can tell they weren’t overly convoluted. You could have skipped to the blue, if you wanted.
Your main (and only) criticism is that there was a major contradiction in something I said. I didn’t notice a contradiction in what you pointed out—but what I think you want is for me to clarify how some of the examples I used are examples of not “maximizing expected utility of the actor”.
Firstly, recognize that “maximizing expected utility of the actor” is your definition of prudence, and thus morality—(unless you’re going to eventually argue for an essential distinction between them). It’s not mine, and I think one possible strength of my arguments is that they apply no matter how you define prudence, or morality, or whether you think there’s an essential distinction between them.
As far as I can tell, this is your major problem with what I wrote. So let’s address it. The example in question is one of me stabbing someone’s eyes out with a fork. And you want to know why doing so is not going to “maximize expected utility for me”. I wonder if my back is against the wall here, and that carving someone’s eyes out with a fork really is what’s best for me. I think you should recognize that the issue in this thread is with whether or not there’s an objective answer to that question, not whether it’s objectively true or objectively false in this case. But regardless, I think carving someone’s eyes out with a fork is usually against your self interest (or "maximized…etc).
- Humans are pack animals, and the pack tends not to look kindly on some member who treats others that way—whether there’s social institutions, laws, or not. That’s one reason to think being a serial killer is against your self-interest.
- You’re a social animal—which means you flourish and do better when relationships are possible for you. Relationships are less possible for you when you carve people’s eyes out. People tend not to like that. Which means, carving someone’s eyes out is likely not in your self-interest.
- In our own day and age, you’re likely to feel guilt, be shunned, be locked up, or have others against you. —Again, not in your self-interest.
Obviously, this does not exhaust the reasons why I think you ought not carve someone’s eyes out with a fork----but I’m just working with your own definition of prudence.
Again, I explicitly did not take on a definition of morality. And my arguments are to the conclusion that you have better reasons to think morality objective—regardless of how you define it. I don’t think my examples betray any essential difference, and I’m not sure where I’ve been equivocal with the particular definitions that I didn’t offer.