Pascal argued that if God might exist and eternal reward or punishment depends on how you live, the rational choice is to live as God would want. If God exists, you gain everything, and if not, you lose little. A tiny probability of an infinite outcome outweighs a finite cost.

Now imagine a more unsettling scenario. Instead of a God who judges, there might be a transdimensional entity that must feed on humans, inflicting extreme or eternal suffering. Its selection criteria are completely unknown. We don't know if it exists, or whether it is good, evil or purely mechanical. (Thought experiment: I'm setting real-world morality and consequences aside.)

My view:

Being good is still the rational choice, by a weak-dominance / maximin argument:

● If the entity is good, being good may be rewarded, or at least spare me.

● If it is evil or mechanical, I have no guarantees either way, so being good costs me nothing in expectation.

So being good is never worse and sometimes better.…