Similar to this argument, one can argue that this same type of argument for not caring about causes and instead caring about essentially maximizing utility can be made for not caring more about one’s own family. This can be used as a reductio because I don’t think anyone is willing to accept that they shouldn’t cure their mom who is sick with $6,000 instead of saving a kid far away — not that this is just subject to biases and they would be more rational if they were to give to people abroad, but that it would actually just be immoral.
The disanalogy is that in that scenario you're saving the person you value, not just preventing deaths from the thing that killed them. Maybe we have special obligations to our loved ones, but I doubt we have special obligations to fight the specific thing that took them out
I hear that. The analogy would come more from the whole “shut up and multiply” mentality — where we should avoid using emotional reasoning as it is biased. One may be concerned that this type of thinking might lead to conclusions like neglecting your family in principle (which might be seen as one of the most important moral rules) and not be very willing to accept general ways of reasoning that would lead to intuitively terrible conclusions.
Yeah I'm with you. I'm a monster that thinks special obligations are probably only instrumentally valuable though, so they can't get me! *Cackles evily*
1. I do not feel personal connection to this. However, the results are of the same kind: prevented death of humans. (E.g. heart disease vs. malaria.)
2. I do not feel personal connection to this. Moreover, the results are also dissimilar. (E.g. heart disease vs. animal welfare.)
Your argument is argument against 1, but not against 2. It is quite consistent to actually not care about animal welfare much (I think I'm on record saying that if your moral theory requires sacrificing one sapient for any reasonable - i.e. not in the ballpark of 9^(9^9) - number of non-sapients, then your theory is wrong).
Article #826529003 on “fuck your feelings, maximize utility” is not particularly insightful or helpful. I guess the personal anecdotes add something, but if that’s what you’re going for, make them the central point of the article, and not a supporting gotcha.
I think I did make it a central point, and I think it added a angle that you don't see often. I write about what I want to, I don't really mind if you've seen it before
I like this point, and I think it is true. This is a great video that makes the same point, which I recommend: https://youtu.be/48VAQtGmfWY?si=2wGafd_tNXQz2LJS.
Quick devils advocate:
Similar to this argument, one can argue that this same type of argument for not caring about causes and instead caring about essentially maximizing utility can be made for not caring more about one’s own family. This can be used as a reductio because I don’t think anyone is willing to accept that they shouldn’t cure their mom who is sick with $6,000 instead of saving a kid far away — not that this is just subject to biases and they would be more rational if they were to give to people abroad, but that it would actually just be immoral.
The disanalogy is that in that scenario you're saving the person you value, not just preventing deaths from the thing that killed them. Maybe we have special obligations to our loved ones, but I doubt we have special obligations to fight the specific thing that took them out
I hear that. The analogy would come more from the whole “shut up and multiply” mentality — where we should avoid using emotional reasoning as it is biased. One may be concerned that this type of thinking might lead to conclusions like neglecting your family in principle (which might be seen as one of the most important moral rules) and not be very willing to accept general ways of reasoning that would lead to intuitively terrible conclusions.
Yeah I'm with you. I'm a monster that thinks special obligations are probably only instrumentally valuable though, so they can't get me! *Cackles evily*
I think there are two "don't care" conflated:
1. I do not feel personal connection to this. However, the results are of the same kind: prevented death of humans. (E.g. heart disease vs. malaria.)
2. I do not feel personal connection to this. Moreover, the results are also dissimilar. (E.g. heart disease vs. animal welfare.)
Your argument is argument against 1, but not against 2. It is quite consistent to actually not care about animal welfare much (I think I'm on record saying that if your moral theory requires sacrificing one sapient for any reasonable - i.e. not in the ballpark of 9^(9^9) - number of non-sapients, then your theory is wrong).
Article #826529003 on “fuck your feelings, maximize utility” is not particularly insightful or helpful. I guess the personal anecdotes add something, but if that’s what you’re going for, make them the central point of the article, and not a supporting gotcha.
I think I did make it a central point, and I think it added a angle that you don't see often. I write about what I want to, I don't really mind if you've seen it before