I have a research project in the same vein as "Bleeding Heart Consequentialism".
My undergraduate thesis was largely a description of the psychology of utilitarian agents. Far from being cold moral calculators, I argued that they possess a composite virtue I called "universal sympathetic love." Adopting the moral point of view involves the cultivation and expression of this virtue. In particular, I argued that the phenomenal content of universal sympathetic love FOR THE AGENT HERSELF is so transcendently, mystically pleasurable that becoming a utilitarian agent is in the present interest of selfish people. I focused a lot on first-person accounts of mystical experiences. Mysticisim and utilitarianism have underrecognised commonalities: both mysticism and utilitarianism view the boundaries of selfhood as irrelevant for assigning moral status, both are inclined to view beings as mere vessels for value. Also, I cited you :)
I think its good to be careful with outreach and persuasion. Champions of utilitarianism may view their own cause as so useful (since based on their own calculations, its the most useful thing anyone could be doing) that it could lead to outlandish behavior and vitriol towards "others."
Look at many animal rights activists. For some extremists, their mission to reduce widespread animal suffering justified all sorts of wild, irrational behaviors on their part that ultimately did more harm than good. Especially for public favor towards the movement.
Since utilitarianism concerns itself with the well-being of conscious beings, I think philosophy investigating the well-being of animals and computers is likely very important. Of course it sounds odd, but if animals like nematodes or brain emulations experience qualia, I think this has important implications in ethics. Discovering this and persuading others of it soon rather than later may be good for value lock in even though it seems really weird.
Regarding research, I think it would be good to promote more non-utilitarian theory-building. I think more people (including philosophers) would be more willing to engage with moral theory if they felt it wasn't restricted to utilitarian views.
Currently there is a shortage of theory-building among non-utilitarians. It doesn't have to be one-liner grand theories. It can be more modest, circumscribed, mid-level principles. Eyal Zamir, John Roemer, John Rawls, Campbell Brown, Larry Alexander, are some people doing good work here I think, but we could use much more.
I have a research project in the same vein as "Bleeding Heart Consequentialism".
My undergraduate thesis was largely a description of the psychology of utilitarian agents. Far from being cold moral calculators, I argued that they possess a composite virtue I called "universal sympathetic love." Adopting the moral point of view involves the cultivation and expression of this virtue. In particular, I argued that the phenomenal content of universal sympathetic love FOR THE AGENT HERSELF is so transcendently, mystically pleasurable that becoming a utilitarian agent is in the present interest of selfish people. I focused a lot on first-person accounts of mystical experiences. Mysticisim and utilitarianism have underrecognised commonalities: both mysticism and utilitarianism view the boundaries of selfhood as irrelevant for assigning moral status, both are inclined to view beings as mere vessels for value. Also, I cited you :)
I think its good to be careful with outreach and persuasion. Champions of utilitarianism may view their own cause as so useful (since based on their own calculations, its the most useful thing anyone could be doing) that it could lead to outlandish behavior and vitriol towards "others."
Look at many animal rights activists. For some extremists, their mission to reduce widespread animal suffering justified all sorts of wild, irrational behaviors on their part that ultimately did more harm than good. Especially for public favor towards the movement.
Since utilitarianism concerns itself with the well-being of conscious beings, I think philosophy investigating the well-being of animals and computers is likely very important. Of course it sounds odd, but if animals like nematodes or brain emulations experience qualia, I think this has important implications in ethics. Discovering this and persuading others of it soon rather than later may be good for value lock in even though it seems really weird.
Regarding research, I think it would be good to promote more non-utilitarian theory-building. I think more people (including philosophers) would be more willing to engage with moral theory if they felt it wasn't restricted to utilitarian views.
Currently there is a shortage of theory-building among non-utilitarians. It doesn't have to be one-liner grand theories. It can be more modest, circumscribed, mid-level principles. Eyal Zamir, John Roemer, John Rawls, Campbell Brown, Larry Alexander, are some people doing good work here I think, but we could use much more.