We’d be happy with externally constructive critiques. For example, there are responses we would value which argue that we should not aim to be impartial altruists or that we should let go of even the broad conception of ‘expected value’ reasoning from Premise 1.
However, eligible posts for the competition will respond to one of the premises, defend a counterargument, or pose a constructive resolution. If your argument doesn’t fall into one of these, I’d urge you to post it during the event week anyway (August 17th) and take part in the discussion, but it wouldn’t be eligible for the competition.
A judge also said to me: “I’d think that ‘externally constructive’ responses are OK, but good ones will answer this problem: It seems like any plausible moral view is going to require some limited form of consequentialism (e.g., you should save two drowning children rather than one ceteris paribus) and we would like some account of how that consequentialism is supposed to work without bringing cluelessness back in.”
Hey Matthew!
We’d be happy with externally constructive critiques. For example, there are responses we would value which argue that we should not aim to be impartial altruists or that we should let go of even the broad conception of ‘expected value’ reasoning from Premise 1.
However, eligible posts for the competition will respond to one of the premises, defend a counterargument, or pose a constructive resolution. If your argument doesn’t fall into one of these, I’d urge you to post it during the event week anyway (August 17th) and take part in the discussion, but it wouldn’t be eligible for the competition.
A judge also said to me: “I’d think that ‘externally constructive’ responses are OK, but good ones will answer this problem: It seems like any plausible moral view is going to require some limited form of consequentialism (e.g., you should save two drowning children rather than one ceteris paribus) and we would like some account of how that consequentialism is supposed to work without bringing cluelessness back in.”