Why mild confidence? Why not complete confidence or no confidence? — Average

Complete confidence blinds you. No confidence cripples you.

How do we make decisions? We evaluate our situation and mentally run through our options based on the experiences and the knowledge we accumulated in our life. I like to imagine this as running a sort of mental equation through my head. Theoretically, if I know all parameters and operate them accordingly, I will always have the same result. I shall take this as my understanding of a "right decision" as well - that is my decision is right in matching my expectation.

I used to be the kind of person who always had a step by step plan and a clear vision of what I want in life. I've changed my ways though. Now I have a rough idea where I want to go in life and I have a rough idea how to get there - but I take the opportunities as they come. The reason for this is simple: I came to notice that if I follow my plans step by step, the results of my steps often weren't what I expected at all.

When we make miniscule decisions, like the ordinary choices we make every day, the mental equation is simple. There are few factors to consider and so these simple decisions basically become automated by our brain. Everyday we're met with a near endless amount of decisions, most so small that we don't even notice making a decision.

But then what about significant decisions? What about decisions that alter large parts of our life? The more potential change a decision holds, the more complicated the mental equation gets. We quickly reach a level of complexity where it becomes impossible to consider all influencing factors and possible outcomes. This is especially true if the decision involves the actions of other people, which in a sense pose an equation of their own.

Confidence then ultimately represents how sure we are about our equation. We're right to be confident in our everyday decisions. But to have "complete confidence" is to claim that our decisions are absolutely infallible. This is akin to claiming we know everything about any given situation. Considering the complexity that any given situation can take, I think it rightful to call this foolish just like a person who claims to know everything would rightfully be called foolish.

No confidence at all on the other hand leaves us forever guessing at our equation. If we have not the slightest idea about the outcome of our decision, there is no point in making a decision at all. Rather, we'll try having others make our decision as much as possible.

I think both actually work to some degree. You can run around in the world acting like you're the smartest and claiming you make all the best decisions for a while. You can surrender all responsibility and let someone else make all your decisions for you for a while. But I reckon both ways open up the door to serious crisis. One where we make a fatal mistake because we were completely oblivious to the possibility of making a mistake at all. The other being forced to make a decision when we lack the confidence to do so, leaving us to guesswork even during crucial decisions in our life.

I would use the criteria of medicine. What I mean is that historically some treatments that have been adopted were later abandoned due to new evidence demonstrating the lack of any value. Bleeding a patient would be an example. — Average

What you call the criteria of medicine seems to be health. Problem is, is health morally right ? If so, then are there exceptions ? If me bleeding to death saved a person from being killed, did I do the irght thing ? If yes, then it must be that there are values higher than health.

How do we determine if we are right or wrong? How can we be certain that our actions are actually beneficial and not counterproductive? — Average

As others have pointed out already, you're asking questions that are too broad to be dealt with. We cannot determine whether we are right or wrong if we do not know what is right and what is wrong. A similar problem arises with your second question too.

But still, for the sake of this discussion, let's assume that happiness is the highest Good, like most claim. The question then is how do you determine whether your actions will reduce or increase the amount of happiness in the world.

The answer is that it is extremely hard to do. Of course, if you knew all the relevant variables, like the sensibilities of those who would be impacted, their preferences, etc., then you could determine the morality of the action. But in real life, we very rarely have that information, What you can do instead is look at what you know, and try to learn as much as possible before deciding a course of action.

But what if you don't know anything about the consequences ? The answer is that if possible, do not act. But if you are forced to act, then I'd say you can do whatever you want to, because whatever what you will do, you cannot be held responsible for the consequences.

Because we could be wrong in our beliefs and attitudes. It's better to recognize this than to become dogmatic, in as much as is possible.

What you call the criteria of medicine seems to be health. Problem is, is health morally right ? If so, then are there exceptions ? — Hello Human

I think that morality is irrelevant. What I mean is that regardless of whether or not health is morally right we need to be healthy in order to do anything in the first place. Also health is only the goal in this example but if I used other examples it would become clear that my criterion is different. For example if we shifted to a military scenario it would become clear that certain tactics and strategies historically adopted were later abandoned due to new evidence demonstrating a lack of any value. The same argument would still apply.

Complete confidence blinds you. No confidence cripples you. — Hermeticus

You seem to be advocating some sort of pragmatic approach but I’d rather be blind or crippled. What I mean is that in my opinion placing any degree of confidence in a decision should be based on some sort of evidence or proof that what you’re doing is going to generate the desired results. Otherwise we’re just taking shots in the dark hoping that what we do actually does make sense.

But still, for the sake of this discussion, let's assume that happiness is the highest Good, like most claim. — Hello Human

Idk I’d prefer to avoid assuming that happiness is the highest good

As others have pointed out already, you're asking questions that are too broad to be dealt with. — Hello Human

Please define broad

Do you think it's possible to determine if we are right or wrong? Why or why not? — Yohan

I would think so because we have made some advancements in the field of medicine for example.

Is it wise to aim at certainty before making a decision? — Yohan

It’s a good idea in my opinion

Do we actually make decisions or do they just sort of happen and then we come up with a reason we made the decision after the fact? — Yohan

I think we make decisions but people are different and some people will try to justify or rationalize their decisions afterwards.

I think that mortality is irrelevant. What I mean is that regardless of whether or not health is morally right we need to be healthy in order to do anything in the first place. Also health is only the goal in this example but if I used other examples it would become clear that my criterion is different. For example if we shifted to a military scenario it would become clear that certain tactics and strategies historically adopted were later abandoned due to new evidence demonstrating a lack of any value. The same argument would still apply. — Average

But what about when the objective can only be accomplished at the detriment of one's health ? Do you sacrifice it, or is there a point where it's better to fail ?

Please define broad — Average

What I mean is your questions can be broken down into a lot of "smaller questions". But I realize this isn't that much of a problem actually.

Idk I’d prefer to avoid assuming that happiness is the highest good
1h — Average

But we need some assumption to work with. If we don't, then we have to answer the question of what is the good, which is a monumental question by itself before trying to answer your question. So, what do you assume to be the highest good ?

But what about when the objective can only be accomplished at the detriment of one's health ? — Hello Human

Can you think of a specific example where this would be the case? It would help me immensely.

So, what do you assume to be the highest good ? — Hello Human

I don’t know if there is a highest good but if I was forced to answer I would probably select the truth in the end.

Something about your question seems ambiguous to me. What does it mean for a decision to make sense? To who? Right and wrong to who? Who is to judge? — Yohan

I think that in order for a decision to make sense it needs to actually produce the desired result. For example in the field of medicine bleeding a patient doesn’t make sense because it does not produce the desired result.

Can you think of a specific example where this would be the case? — Average

Imagine that there's an asteroid coming towards Earth and I am sent on a mission to stop it. Now imagine that to do so, I must activate a device that can only be activated manually and destroys everything in a 50 km radius, destroying the asteroid and me.

Now imagine that to do so, I must activate a device that can only be activated manually and destroys everything in a 50 km radius, destroying the asteroid and me. — Hello Human

If you’re asking me what I would do in that situation the answer is that I would probably activate the device. So no I don’t think that health is the highest good or some sort criterion we can use to make decisions.

Whenever we decide to do something we believe that what we are about to do actually does make sense. — Average

Speak for yourself! :D

I think that in order for a decision to make sense it needs to actually produce the desired result. For example in the field of medicine bleeding a patient doesn’t make sense because it does not produce the desired result. — Average

So if you try something and fail, does that mean it didn't make sense to try?

So if you try something and fail, does that mean it didn't make sense to try? — Yohan

Can you think of a concrete example where this would be the case? It would help me immensely.

Speak for yourself! — I like sushi

I think I can speak for everyone in this instance.

For example in the field of medicine bleeding a patient doesn’t make sense because it does not produce the desired result. — Average

Assuming you trust the consensus of medical experts on the efficacy of blood letting, then you already have reason to think blood letting will not produce the desired result.

So it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to try something when you already feel sure it will not succeed.

However, if blood letting was not yet widely tested, and there is some reason to think it may work, and the consequences of failure aren't dire, it could possibly make sense to try blood letting.

Assuming blood letting in fact doesn't work at all, this was probably discovered by trying it and testing the results, and comparing the results to chance etc.

So it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to try something when you already feel sure it will not succeed. — Yohan

I don’t think that it would make sense to try something even if you feel fairly certain that it will succeed. What we need is some sort of proof or evidence that guarantees that we are making decisions that make sense.

However, if blood letting was not yet widely tested, and there is some reason to think it may work, and the consequences of failure aren't dire, it could possibly make sense to try blood letting. — Yohan

I’m not sure how useful this hypothetical scenario is. I can’t replicate those conditions so I have no way of knowing if you’re right or not. But I do appreciate your input.

I don’t think that it would make sense to try something even if you feel fairly certain that it will succeed. What we need is some sort of proof or evidence that guarantees that we are making decisions that make sense. — Average

I can imagine doing that in the medical profession, but I'm not sure how that can be done outside of a setting where there are standard procedures. (And even in medicine people can still come up with new or improved procedures or run into unprecedented or rare cases, and the experts don't always agree 100% on which procedures are best for which particular cases.)

PS. I'd think the best one can hope for is to know oneself enough to know that one isn't fooling oneself and is making the best possible decision in light of the known information.

in medicine people can still come up with new or improved procedures or run into unprecedented or rare cases — Yohan

I agree but people can also come up with horrible ideas that can end up doing more harm than good which is why it’s important to have a method that can detect problems in advance if possible.

I'd think the best one can hope for is to know oneself enough to know that one isn't fooling oneself and is making the best possible decision in light of the known information. — Yohan

You might be right but hopefully there is a way to predict the consequences of our actions and avoid catastrophe

I agree but people can also come up with horrible ideas that can end up doing more harm than good which is why it’s important to have a method that can detect problems in advance if possible — Average

You’re looking for a shortcut, the idea that there is an objective, consensus-based correct path. The major religions think this way. Maybe you should consult the clergy. i dont believe there is such a thing as objective truth about the important matters one’s life. You can grab onto some authority if it would make you feel better to conform to someone else’s idea of
what to do.

But the fact is , each of us create our own version of reality to guide us in the world. Since our world is constantly changing , we have to change our thinking from time to time to keep up with it.
Your own emotions are the the most important indicators you have that your ways of coping that used to work are starting to fail you.
When you start feeling confusion, self doubt and anxiety that means it’s time to get experimental and start
trying out new ways of approaching things. Your own feelings will tell you if you’re on the right track or not.

i dont believe there is such a thing as objective truth about the important matters one’s life. — Joshs

I definitely do believe that there is such a thing as objective truth about the important matters in life and It seems obvious to me but I don’t expect everyone to agree. Would you mind explaining why you don’t believe in objective truth when it comes to the important matters in our lives? I would love to learn more about your position.

Each of us has our own perspective on things . No one else can share this identically. It is what makes each of us unique. That doesn’t mean we can’t agree on many important things , but this requires that we start from
where the other person is at rather than from assumed objective standards. Those standards are just an averaging of all our individual differences. Kind of like 98.6 fahrenheit is just an average of many bodies. We don’t demand that everyone be at the same temp.

That doesn’t mean we can’t agree on many important things , but this requires that we start from
where the other person is at rather than from assumed objective standards. — Joshs

Can you give me an example of what an objective standard might look like because I don’t recall ever trying to use them as some sort of basis. In other words I’m not even sure what you’re referring to when you mention objective standards. I could really use some clarification.