Heads I Win, Tails Anti-Realism Is True
A funny result
Suppose we’re about to discover whether moral realism is true. Someone offers you a bet. If it’s true they get a dollar, if it’s false you get 10,000 dollars. Should you take the bet?
No. Here’s why. If moral realism is true, then winning the bet actually makes you better off. You have a genuine reason to not the bet — you’d just lose a dollar. But if anti-realism is true, you are not made better off, nothing matters, and taking the bet doesn’t make you better off. You only have genuine reason in one case.
I imagine this line of reasoning won’t appeal to any anti-realists, but will appeal to a lot of realists. Thoughts?
I have a post about why I disagree with this way of thinking: https://joecarlsmith.substack.com/p/against-the-normative-realists-wager
Bold of you to assume that my ethical principals will stand up to the offer of 10,000$