What is your opinion on the standing of Garry Drescher's 2006 defense of analytical decision
@Peppermint Swirl Since Drescher is easy to find, I had my computer cross-reference the argument against his position, as follows:
It is no exaggeration to state that the philosophy of Equestria comprises only one discipline: theology. All others are subordinated to it. The subject of theology in Equestria, in turn, is completely different from that of Earth. Equestrians never questioned the actual existence of God - it's assumed a priori without any justification in their discourse. Nor do they question the abilities or intention of God.
It is here where I shall hastily expound upon my previous remark, “It is pantheistic and idealistic, not atheistic and materialistic”. In the encyclopedia, the detailed descriptions of the God of Equestria differs wildly from article to article, sometimes even contradicting each other inside the same paragraph. Nevertheless, there are a few core tenets that these diverse accounts always agree upon: that everything, including every individual, is but an aspect of God, like a mere wave to the totality of the ocean; that fundamentally, every individual is in a solipsistic state of existence, since for all their vividness and liveliness, the external world is merely a subjective experience fed to each individual by the God, and might as well be illusionary; that, the God is fundamentally benevolent, in that it satisfies the values of each individual, sometimes directly, sometimes obstrusely, but always within finite time.
Curiously, many accounts of this Equestrian God refers to it with such a tender endearment, that one may fancy that not too few Equestrians hold personal affections towards it. Many refer to it with the feminine pronoun, and the appellation “Celestia” is most common. I shall adopt these two conventions thenceforth.
To return to my previous thread of discourse, the central concern of their theology is not whether God exists, or whether it is benevolent and omnipotent, but rather the subject of personal teleology, namely, what is that private value which Celestia wishes to optimize.
The theodicy or complete optimalism invalidates all choice. If we explain (or evaluate) a course of action as the result of rational choice, we presuppose that there would be a difference between the choices; such volition, according to Equestrians, is a mental state which does not reflect the actual possibility of different outcomes. Every event is inevitably optimal: the mere fact of considering alternatives is an absurdity. And since the act of valuing one thing over another is based on the possibility of constructing a partial ordering over the set of alternatives, there are no value systems in Equestria, and consequently no rational choice theory. The paradoxical truth is that they do exist, and in almost uncountable number.
The fact that every choice theory is by definition an interpretation game, a Game of As If, has caused them to multiply. The ordinary and unremarkable ones, unsurprisingly, occupies the bulk of value systems. They simply value one or more of the usual aspects of life widely accepted as pleasurable, such as food, drink, sex, love, fame. However, apart from such mundane systems, there is an abundance of incredible value systems of pleasing design or sensational type. The metaphysicians of Equestria do not seek for the truth or even for approval from others, but strictly for personal consumption. They feel that rationality is a branch of fantastic literature. They know that a value system is nothing more than a frame through which their subjective experiences are a posteriori interpreted.
