Dec 29, 2023·edited Dec 29, 2023Liked by Richard Y Chappell
The beneficentrism concept has actually slightly improved my life, unironically. It's helped me see what I have in common with e.g. religious views on ethics more clearly and feel more like we're all in this together. Also, I think that I now finally properly understand the point Sam Harris was making in the Moral Landscape which got panned by a lot of professional philosophers because it was interpreted as making baseless claims about meta ethics. But it wasn't, Sam Harris was (less precisely than you) pointing out the truth of Beneficentrism!
Dec 29, 2023·edited Jan 1Liked by Richard Y Chappell
Why don't more moral/political philosophers have a substack or blog about their topic and engage with comments? [Three others I know of are Michael Huemer, Eric Schitzgibel, RICHARD PETTIGREW. "New Work in Philosophy" is another but has very little engagement. Huemer also doesn't really engage comments.]
One possibility is that utilitarians have a stronger motive to evangelize than proponents of "agent-relative" views under which getting others to act ethically is not necessarily a priority.
But is it true in general that utilitarian philosophers have more blogs about ethics than non-utilitarians?
As an outsider, sometimes I wonder if the formal editorial process is the only place moral/political philosophers engage across the aisle (since it's by force). But the turnaround time of formal journals is much too slow to facilitate efficient dialogue. I think blogs could help with that.
Just noticed your Footnote 4 in "Bleeding-Heart Consequentialism":
"If anything, I might slightly prefer my death to be useful rather than to be mere collateral damage."
I was just arguing yesterday that the "Doctrine of Double Effect" would imply that a cosmetic company testing on animals would be *morally better* if it knows the tests are completely useless and does them anyway, than if it knows they're useful for reducing harm to customers. I don't imagine that a rabbit or beagle would be able to share your intuition there, but the straightforward implication from DDE is insane nonetheless.
The beneficentrism concept has actually slightly improved my life, unironically. It's helped me see what I have in common with e.g. religious views on ethics more clearly and feel more like we're all in this together. Also, I think that I now finally properly understand the point Sam Harris was making in the Moral Landscape which got panned by a lot of professional philosophers because it was interpreted as making baseless claims about meta ethics. But it wasn't, Sam Harris was (less precisely than you) pointing out the truth of Beneficentrism!
Congratulations on your success. Happy new year!
Why don't more moral/political philosophers have a substack or blog about their topic and engage with comments? [Three others I know of are Michael Huemer, Eric Schitzgibel, RICHARD PETTIGREW. "New Work in Philosophy" is another but has very little engagement. Huemer also doesn't really engage comments.]
One possibility is that utilitarians have a stronger motive to evangelize than proponents of "agent-relative" views under which getting others to act ethically is not necessarily a priority.
But is it true in general that utilitarian philosophers have more blogs about ethics than non-utilitarians?
As an outsider, sometimes I wonder if the formal editorial process is the only place moral/political philosophers engage across the aisle (since it's by force). But the turnaround time of formal journals is much too slow to facilitate efficient dialogue. I think blogs could help with that.
Just noticed your Footnote 4 in "Bleeding-Heart Consequentialism":
"If anything, I might slightly prefer my death to be useful rather than to be mere collateral damage."
I was just arguing yesterday that the "Doctrine of Double Effect" would imply that a cosmetic company testing on animals would be *morally better* if it knows the tests are completely useless and does them anyway, than if it knows they're useful for reducing harm to customers. I don't imagine that a rabbit or beagle would be able to share your intuition there, but the straightforward implication from DDE is insane nonetheless.