Where I write up some small ideas that I've been happening that may eventually become their own top level posts. I'll start populating with a few ideas I've posted up as twitter/Facebook thoughts.
I think philosophical bullet biting is usually wrong. It can be useful to make a theory that you KNOW is wrong, and bite a bullet in order to make progress on a philosophical problem. However, I think it can be quite damaging to accept a practical theory of ethics that feels practical and consistent to you, but breaks some of your major moral intuitions. In this case I think it's better to go "I don't know how to come up with a consistent theory for this part of my actions, but I'll follow my gut instead."
Note that this is the opposite of becoming a robust agent. However, the alternative is CREATING a robust agent that is not in fact aligned with its' creator. I've seen people who adopted a moral view for consistency, and now make choices that they NEVER would have endorsed before they chose to bite bullets for consistency.
I think this is one of my major disagreements with Raemon's view of becoming a robust agent.
Where I write up some small ideas that I've been happening that may eventually become their own top level posts. I'll start populating with a few ideas I've posted up as twitter/Facebook thoughts.