J: Reply to S's rigged die scenario

So, my options are guessing that the rigged die will land on 1, or <2,3,4,5,6>. 

I do not know which number it is rigged to land on. 

Therefore I cannot make any assumptions about which number it is rigged to land on.

In reality, the probability of the number it lands on is:

rigged number=1

other numbers=0.

But to me, the probability of each number being the rigged number is 1/6. So adding that fact into my calculation does nothing to influence my decision. All I know is, guessing that it will land on a number higher than 1 contains 5 out of the 6 possible outcomes, while guessing 1 contains 1 out of 6 possible outcomes. Therefore it is more reasonable.

How is this any different from simple probability?

Probability does not hinge on truth; that is, the fact that it may be rigged to land on 1 in no way undercuts the rationale that given what I know, is it more probable to guess not-1 than 1.

It is only because it is more probable to guess not 1 that makes it "more reasonable". The fact that the dice is rigged is negated by the fact that I do not know which number it is rigged to land on. Thus each number has 1/5 chance of being the rigged number. So there is no point introducing either element. You could have simply asked me to guess 1 or not-1 with a fair die. The analysis is exactly the same.

for J

I don't understand your criticisms, in which you refer to the substitution of reasonable and probable so I thought I'd just ask you the following.
There's a 6 sided dice.
Its rigged to land on one of the numbers.
you have to guess whether it will land on 1 or a number higher than one
Do you think its more reasonable:

To guess that it will land on 1
or
To guess it will land on a number higher than one.


Imagine that I'm asking you and I don't know which number the dice is going to land on. if you guess right ill give you a dollar.

S: well shit didnt know you guys would get all blah blah dont be a layman moralist loser and shit. so ill just examine the argument.
"I think we should maximise happiness"
Because
"happiness is something that everyone wants"
And
"I wonna give people what they want"

Well since I'm an egoist, or what ever you want to call it, and think that we can only ever do, or want to do, what gives us pleasure (in a broad sense) I can't really criticise you for wanting to maximise happiness because you want to maximise happiness. That's all it seems to be though and I don't see J's appeal to reason anywhere. it seems to boil down to "Making others happy makes me happy." yah? nah?... wha?
Also it seems that if your holding a doctrine such as "I want to make others happy" because you want to, it seems unnecessary; you could just skip a step, get rid of the doctrine and do what you want regardless of others happiness by the same logic.