Premise 1 is wrong because the standard for making a moral action cannot be tied to an impossible "perfect rationality", you can say that an act is the most moral act of a person if its what they were able to come to with the limited rationality they actually have.
Your justification for Premise 2 is both wrong and partially circular. Even ignoring the fact that the predicate to the "if" statement seems metaphysically impossible, experiencing everyone's life would have no reason to be impartial. I experience every moment of my own life, but I doubt that I'm "impartial" to every part of my life. You give no explanation for why this is the case.
Next you make a highly interesting statement: "if we were fully rational, we’d be fully rational."
This is 100% correct, and also 100% tautology, there is no evidence or logic behind the assertion that experiencing everything would somehow cause perfect rationality.
If you're going to claim that "maximizing the value of life" is "perfectly rational", not only do you have to prove that hedonism is true, you also have to prove that hedonism is exclusively true.
Premise Three is just the definition of utilitarianism Mr. Bulldog..........!
Last thing:
"We could just stipulate a gradual morally neutral process of continuity as you slowly morph into each person and then experience their life."
Then presumably there would be some extra time where you are "morphing" between lives, which does not actually exist in the real world. It also seems highly dubious that merely continuing continuity of consciousness is sufficient to render this "morally neutral".
Everything you just said is wrong.
Premise 1 is wrong because the standard for making a moral action cannot be tied to an impossible "perfect rationality", you can say that an act is the most moral act of a person if its what they were able to come to with the limited rationality they actually have.
Your justification for Premise 2 is both wrong and partially circular. Even ignoring the fact that the predicate to the "if" statement seems metaphysically impossible, experiencing everyone's life would have no reason to be impartial. I experience every moment of my own life, but I doubt that I'm "impartial" to every part of my life. You give no explanation for why this is the case.
Next you make a highly interesting statement: "if we were fully rational, we’d be fully rational."
This is 100% correct, and also 100% tautology, there is no evidence or logic behind the assertion that experiencing everything would somehow cause perfect rationality.
If you're going to claim that "maximizing the value of life" is "perfectly rational", not only do you have to prove that hedonism is true, you also have to prove that hedonism is exclusively true.
Premise Three is just the definition of utilitarianism Mr. Bulldog..........!
Last thing:
"We could just stipulate a gradual morally neutral process of continuity as you slowly morph into each person and then experience their life."
Then presumably there would be some extra time where you are "morphing" between lives, which does not actually exist in the real world. It also seems highly dubious that merely continuing continuity of consciousness is sufficient to render this "morally neutral".