>> Your claim seems to boil down to two things: First, people sometimes make very incorrect predictions, so you've stopped worrying about them. > Didn't say I

>> Your claim seems to boil down to two things: First, people sometimes make very incorrect predictions, so you've stopped worrying about them. > Didn't say I stopped worrying about them: global warming worries me. Ubiquitous microplastics worry me. Heavy metals in our food supply & PFAS in our water worries me. On what basis do you worry about them? Why worry about some more than others? (I know my answers, but I'm interested in how you do it.) Do you factor in the probability of their occurrence? I'd expect you do, this is sort of inevitable for people, though people aren't typically very well calibrated in probabilities, especially on the upper (near 100%) and lower ends (near 0%). I'm trying to understand what I perceive as your pushback against moral reasoning that involves probabilities over future scenarios. Here is my rough overall take at this point: given your ethical foundations (DE or close to it) and life experience (hard to know, often not driven by logic and reason -- such is the human condition) you bristle against consequentialism and longtermism in particular. I get it, but I don't think this is a good place to end up, even when I factor in your core beliefs. I 'chalk it up' to the high cost of mental reorgnization. My hypothesis is this: the 'wedge' examples that people use against consequentialism have had an outsized effect on how you view it. I don't detect any antipathy towards logic or probabilistic reasoning in general, but I also don't perceive a relentless drive towards it.