I concede the debate, I was not able to come up with sufficient counters to the last two quoted sections.
If you're curious, here's what I came up with before conceding:
I will make a series of claims (numbered as C1, C5, etc.) in this argument, please point out which claim(s) you disagree with, if any, and why.
C1. The definition of "justified" provided in the debate description is:
Justified: Objectively ethically and/or axiologically warranted. Objectively preferable (or at least equal to alternative(s)) given what is objectively ethical/unethical and/or valuable/"unvaluable".
C2. Something that is "justified" using this definition must be objectively preferable/equal even after accounting for the bad/lack of bad of the relevant options.
I agree with all of these premises, but the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from them, because it ignores the possibility for bad.
C3. Either the possibility for bad can influence what is objectively preferable or it can't.
C4. If it can't, under any reasonable definition it isn't relevant to this debate.
So, assuming it can influence what is objectively preferable, let's take a look at the conclusion in question and plug in the more detailed variant of the definition provided in the description:
We are more likely to succeed at doing what is objectively preferable (or at least equal to alternatives(s)) given what is objectively ethical/unethical and/or valuable/"unvaluable" with living than with suicide.
C5. This accounts for what is objectively preferable,
C6. therefore it implicitly accounts for what influences what is objectively preferable.
C7. Therefore it accounts for the possibility of bad.
Now let's take a look at the premises that supported that conclusion, which you say you agree with:
if x has a higher probability than y of leading to us discovering what is justified,
then we are more likely to succeed at doing what is justified with x than with y.
C8. This must also account for the possibility of bad. (Supported by C2 and C5-7)
[...] living always has a higher probability of discovering what is justified than suicide
C9. This premise satisfies the requirements of the previous premise's if statement with x being "living" and y being "committing suicide". And if you agree with that premise, the conclusion in the then section follows.
C10. The aforementioned conclusion is what follows from this.
If you agree with all of the claims I've made so far, I don't see how there's a problem with this argument not accounting for the possibility of bad, or how the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.
Your coin example is good, I'll revise my R1 argument's conclusion to "Suicide is probably never justified."
The probability of doing good counts for nothing if that probability isn't actually realized.
This is BS that tries to dodge the main point:
C11. Agreed, but we don't know ahead of time whether or not the probability will actually be realized.
C12. So, in the interest of actually realizing a good outcome or avoiding a bad outcome in the future, we still try to maximize/minimize their probabilities.
It is [...] possible that someone discovers what is justified for them to do, and they decide to do the opposite.
I think this might work, but it would take way more characters to flesh out:
C??. When we say that someone decides to do something, we mean that they consciously decide to do it.
C??. The brain works by coming up with plans to achieve objectives (whether the objectives be known consciously or subconsciously).
C??. Everybody's ultimate goal is to do what they believe to be best.
C??. All things people decide to do are in the interest of doing what they believe to be best.
They could still discover and then forget/illogically act against it though.
C??. By the time we discover what is best, virtually everyone will be so much more open minded and critical that it would be implausible that anyone would irrationally act against it, and there would virtually certainly be AIs and people capable of recognizing and reminding, and it would probably be well known.
If you believe you could do much better with the same setup (can be (a) different R1 argument(s)), I would be elated to argue as Con against you.
I agree.
4,096 characters, 3 days, and as far as I know no good alternative except for a very complex argument with no previous formal representation. This made for a challenge I was not able to do very well at.
Omitting "(or at least equal to alternative(s))" from the definition of "justified" would have made it a lot easier, but I wanted to see if I could formalize my axiological position, and I underestimated the character requirement to do that well given my abilities.
This argument is terrible
I am actually black so pro is wrong
Who knows... Who knows what dreams you'll be having today at night and what decision you'd have to make :)
Btw, most people tend to save their life till the very end, hoping to the divine salvage. So, you can't be sure how you'd behave.
I 'might, but the possibility for failure and torture being high,
I'd might be tempted to save it for myself,
Hopefully I'll never have to know what I would decide.
Why wouldn't you try to kill one of cannibals using your gun? In that case they'll maybe decide that you're some magical divine creature, who can kill from distance :) I'm sure they know nothing about firearm.
Well, I'm pretty willful about living myself,
Even in theoretical circumstances.
But if I crashed on a desert island, and saw several other of my shipmates grilled alive over an open fire before being eaten alive (Just cooked a bit) by cannibals,
Then the cannibals are gesturing at me and the fire, and I happened to have a gun hidden, with one bullet,
Suicide 'might be tempting then.
I wont kill myself because I am a coward.