Thanks for the reply! I don’t know if I’m banned either, but I’m happy to continue the conversation. (I’m sorry if I’ve done something ban-worthy, I’ll be happy to stop whatever I’m doing that’s bad.)
Not completely sure I understand how Peter Singer qualified as an epistemic mugger, but if your point is that infinities make utilitarianism really wonky, absolutely. I do think the drowning child thought experiment has value still, especially as it doesn’t contain infinities, that chugging Peter in the river would be bad, and that prosecuting people like SBF who try to defend themselves with bizarrely misunderstood moral philosophy is good.
Naturally the donation strategy in Bangladesh should be updated once that charity is no longer the most effective, e.g. if so much has been donated that they’ve solved the problem in Bangladesh. In The life you can save, its explicitly argued that donating to charity is likely not the most effective action if we’re talking about the resources of an entire society, but it’s something you can do right now to great effect. You can both save the drowning child and work towards a more fair society that stops more suffering in the long term. You can seize the means of production without new shoes.
What the idiotic longtermists get wrong is that somehow you should only focus on the long term and ignore the child that’s drowning right now.
Stopping the Bangladesh famine from even happening clearly has much greater utility than donating money to save a single life. But while I have very little individual power to stop the famine, I do have the power to save a life directly. Again, I can organize to change the system while also donating what I can to the most effective charity. That’s what Peter Singer argues, and I do indeed find it convincing.
There is a genocide going on right now in Gaza. Has Singer, the great utilitarian, said anything about how the common man should act to stop it?
Is it more effective to protest or block ports or destroy weaponry? Do we have a moral obligation to overthrow governments supporting genocide, in particular if that government is in our country? If we come across one of the perpetrators of the genocide do we have a moral obligation to do something?
Or are these all to uncomfortable questions, while the donation habits of the middle class is comfortable questions?
I have no idea what Peter Singer has to say about Gaza. I haven’t heard anything decisive about what the most effective way to help stop the genocide is, I don’t think there is much evidence on the matter right now. Based on EA I’d say do as much as you can, but don’t neglect the possibly more effective causes like malaria nets and direct giving in the meantime.
Is your argument that Singer’s philosophical arguments are fallacious because he hasn’t delivered a guide to how to help the Palestinians? Because I don’t think that works out.
If your argument is that he himself is a poor philosopher or activist for that reason, then sure, I have nothing against that.
My argument is that if he hasn’t spoken out on Gaza, if he hasn’t urged people to do what he thinks would be the best way to stop the genocide, then he is either a fool who can’t see what is in front of him or a moral coward who can’t act on his convictions.
Either way it makes him a poor ethics philosopher. We can be pretty sure that unless he himself is an experienced life guard, he would in fact not dive in to the river to save the child.
Does moral cowardice matter in someone teaching about ethics? Yes, just as much as physical cowardice matters for a life guard. (The other way is fine.)
Does he express his ideas and teachings as something that it would be good if people did, but he totally wouldn’t if it causes himself a smidgen of inconvenience? If he didn’t, we now know that he was lying. Which matters if your moral framework cares about truth.
If you have to read his works for some reason, do it with open eyes and try to figure out who and what he is lying in service of.
Nothing about a philosopher’s person matters as long as they’re able to put forward coherent philosophical arguments. If a conclusion follows from a set of assumptions and an argument, what does it matter if a five year old or a tree presented that argument?
Sure, if you distrust the source, that invites deeper scrutiny, but it cannot in itself invalidate an argument.
That’s first-order ethics. Some of us have second-order ethics. The philosophical introduction to this is Smilansky’s designer ethics. The wording is fairly odious, but the concept is simple: e.g. Heidegger was a Nazi, and that means that his opinions are suspect even if competently phrased and argued. A common example of this is discounting scientific claims put forth by creationists, intelligent-design proponents, and other apologists; they are arguing with a bias and it is fair to examine that bias.
Nah dawg it’s the fact that his “incredible solid and well argued” moral framework finds it impossible to unequivocally denounce a fucking genocide that means that maybe it’s not nearly as solid as you say.
He’s not the owner of the framework, the framework pretty obviously denounces a fucking genocide on the grounds of basic universalism and utilitarianism.
Nothing to do with what he does or doesn’t do or say. We’re allowed to think for ourselves, that’s what philosophy is for.
Nah, it doesn’t. Utilitarianism is pretty useless; in this case, it’s pretty fucking clear that the IDF are utility monsters. And what do you mean by “basic universalism”?
response to your edit: that is not an unequivocal denouncement of genocide lol. That’s some weaselly shit where Singer is trying his best not to say what is obviously true (genocide bad) and instead try and say “these are ways in which Israel can continue to justify genocide.”
Nah, it doesn’t. Utilitarianism is pretty useless; in this case, it’s pretty fucking clear that the IDF are utility monsters.
Don’t worry, utility monsters aren’t real. A utilitarian would say the “benefit” the IDF reaps from doing genocide is completely dwarfed by the suffering they cause.
And what do you mean by “basic universalism”?
That all individuals have equal value independent of race or belief or religion or whatever. A fundamental element of EA.
Singer is trying his best not to say what is obviously true (genocide bad)
Sure, I don’t really care about him, as I said, we’re allowed to apply the EA framework without him leading the way.
Thanks for the reply! I don’t know if I’m banned either, but I’m happy to continue the conversation. (I’m sorry if I’ve done something ban-worthy, I’ll be happy to stop whatever I’m doing that’s bad.)
Not completely sure I understand how Peter Singer qualified as an epistemic mugger, but if your point is that infinities make utilitarianism really wonky, absolutely. I do think the drowning child thought experiment has value still, especially as it doesn’t contain infinities, that chugging Peter in the river would be bad, and that prosecuting people like SBF who try to defend themselves with bizarrely misunderstood moral philosophy is good.
Naturally the donation strategy in Bangladesh should be updated once that charity is no longer the most effective, e.g. if so much has been donated that they’ve solved the problem in Bangladesh. In The life you can save, its explicitly argued that donating to charity is likely not the most effective action if we’re talking about the resources of an entire society, but it’s something you can do right now to great effect. You can both save the drowning child and work towards a more fair society that stops more suffering in the long term. You can seize the means of production without new shoes.
What the idiotic longtermists get wrong is that somehow you should only focus on the long term and ignore the child that’s drowning right now.
There is a genocide going on right now in Gaza. Has Singer, the great utilitarian, said anything about how the common man should act to stop it?
Is it more effective to protest or block ports or destroy weaponry? Do we have a moral obligation to overthrow governments supporting genocide, in particular if that government is in our country? If we come across one of the perpetrators of the genocide do we have a moral obligation to do something?
Or are these all to uncomfortable questions, while the donation habits of the middle class is comfortable questions?
I have no idea what Peter Singer has to say about Gaza. I haven’t heard anything decisive about what the most effective way to help stop the genocide is, I don’t think there is much evidence on the matter right now. Based on EA I’d say do as much as you can, but don’t neglect the possibly more effective causes like malaria nets and direct giving in the meantime.
Is your argument that Singer’s philosophical arguments are fallacious because he hasn’t delivered a guide to how to help the Palestinians? Because I don’t think that works out.
If your argument is that he himself is a poor philosopher or activist for that reason, then sure, I have nothing against that.
My argument is that if he hasn’t spoken out on Gaza, if he hasn’t urged people to do what he thinks would be the best way to stop the genocide, then he is either a fool who can’t see what is in front of him or a moral coward who can’t act on his convictions.
Either way it makes him a poor ethics philosopher. We can be pretty sure that unless he himself is an experienced life guard, he would in fact not dive in to the river to save the child.
If he wouldn’t save the drowning child, does that mean I shouldn’t? Does his potential personal failings really invalidate his ideas and arguments?
No. That’s exactly the ad hominem fallacy.
Does moral cowardice matter in someone teaching about ethics? Yes, just as much as physical cowardice matters for a life guard. (The other way is fine.)
Does he express his ideas and teachings as something that it would be good if people did, but he totally wouldn’t if it causes himself a smidgen of inconvenience? If he didn’t, we now know that he was lying. Which matters if your moral framework cares about truth.
If you have to read his works for some reason, do it with open eyes and try to figure out who and what he is lying in service of.
Nothing about a philosopher’s person matters as long as they’re able to put forward coherent philosophical arguments. If a conclusion follows from a set of assumptions and an argument, what does it matter if a five year old or a tree presented that argument?
Sure, if you distrust the source, that invites deeper scrutiny, but it cannot in itself invalidate an argument.
That’s first-order ethics. Some of us have second-order ethics. The philosophical introduction to this is Smilansky’s designer ethics. The wording is fairly odious, but the concept is simple: e.g. Heidegger was a Nazi, and that means that his opinions are suspect even if competently phrased and argued. A common example of this is discounting scientific claims put forth by creationists, intelligent-design proponents, and other apologists; they are arguing with a bias and it is fair to examine that bias.
“What do you mean the clock is broken? It’s 12 now, and the clock says 12!”
@SmoothOperator @mountainriver
What’s your position on Codes Of Conduct for free software projects? Just trying to confirm some prejudices here
Could you elaborate? I’m not sure I know what you’re referring to, I’m not a software developer.
Nah dawg it’s the fact that his “incredible solid and well argued” moral framework finds it impossible to unequivocally denounce a fucking genocide that means that maybe it’s not nearly as solid as you say.
He’s not the owner of the framework, the framework pretty obviously denounces a fucking genocide on the grounds of basic universalism and utilitarianism.
Nothing to do with what he does or doesn’t do or say. We’re allowed to think for ourselves, that’s what philosophy is for.
Edit: If you need Peter to do it for you, here: Killing 126 civilians to get at a single Hamas commander is absolutely not morally permissible.
Nah, it doesn’t. Utilitarianism is pretty useless; in this case, it’s pretty fucking clear that the IDF are utility monsters. And what do you mean by “basic universalism”?
response to your edit: that is not an unequivocal denouncement of genocide lol. That’s some weaselly shit where Singer is trying his best not to say what is obviously true (genocide bad) and instead try and say “these are ways in which Israel can continue to justify genocide.”
Don’t worry, utility monsters aren’t real. A utilitarian would say the “benefit” the IDF reaps from doing genocide is completely dwarfed by the suffering they cause.
That all individuals have equal value independent of race or belief or religion or whatever. A fundamental element of EA.
Sure, I don’t really care about him, as I said, we’re allowed to apply the EA framework without him leading the way.