Understandable! Would you still say, though, that abortion is intrinsically morally bad? (As in the above, that doesnât at all mean you have to endorse involuntary methods of reducing it.)
No, though maybe youâre using the word âintrinsicallyâ differently? For the (majority) consequentialist part of my moral portfolio: The main intrinsic bad is suffering, and wellbeing (somewhat broader) is intrinsically good.
I think any argument about creating people/âetc is instrumentalâwill they or wonât they increase wellbeing? They can both potentially contain suffering/âwellbeing themselves, and affect the world in ways that affect wellbeing/âsuffering now & in the future. This includes effects before they are born (e.g. on womenâs lives). TBH given your above arguments, Iâm confused about the focus on abortionâit seems like you should be just as opposed to people choosing not to have children, and focus on encouraging/âsupporting people having kids.
For now, I think the ~main thing that matters is from a total-view longtermist perspective is making it through âthe technological precipiceâ, where risks of permanent loss of sentient life/âour values is somewhat likely, so other total-view longtermist arguments flow through effects on this + influencing for good trajectory arguably. Since abortion access seems good for civilization trajectory (women can have children when the want, donât have their lives & health derailed, etc), more women involved in the development of powerful technology probably makes these fields more cautious/âless rash, fewer âunwanted childrenâ [probably worse life outcomes], etc. Then abortion access seems good.
Maybe related: in general when maximizing, I think itâs probably best to finding the most important 1-3 things, then focus on those things. (e.g. for temp of my house, focus on temp of thermostat + temp of outside + insulation quality, ignore body heat & similar small things)
Thanks for this detail! Yeah, I agree that encouraging/âsupporting people having kids is a more effective approach, and that other things matter more from a total longtermist perspective. (In particular, if human extinction does occur in the near term, then factory farming plausibly outweighs everything good weâve ever done. Either way, we have much to catch up on.)
To be more precise on the question, do you think that with all else equal, choosing to have a child is better than choosing to abort, assuming that the child will live a net good life (in expectation)? (This is what I was trying to capture with the word âintrinsicââwithout accounting for concerns of norms, opportunity costs, other interventions dominating, etc i.e. as a unitary yes-or-no decision.)
Your advice on optimization is definitely correct, and I have many regrets about the framing of this post, some of which I enumerate here.
Understandable! Would you still say, though, that abortion is intrinsically morally bad? (As in the above, that doesnât at all mean you have to endorse involuntary methods of reducing it.)
No, though maybe youâre using the word âintrinsicallyâ differently? For the (majority) consequentialist part of my moral portfolio: The main intrinsic bad is suffering, and wellbeing (somewhat broader) is intrinsically good.
I think any argument about creating people/âetc is instrumentalâwill they or wonât they increase wellbeing? They can both potentially contain suffering/âwellbeing themselves, and affect the world in ways that affect wellbeing/âsuffering now & in the future. This includes effects before they are born (e.g. on womenâs lives). TBH given your above arguments, Iâm confused about the focus on abortionâit seems like you should be just as opposed to people choosing not to have children, and focus on encouraging/âsupporting people having kids.
For now, I think the ~main thing that matters is from a total-view longtermist perspective is making it through âthe technological precipiceâ, where risks of permanent loss of sentient life/âour values is somewhat likely, so other total-view longtermist arguments flow through effects on this + influencing for good trajectory arguably. Since abortion access seems good for civilization trajectory (women can have children when the want, donât have their lives & health derailed, etc), more women involved in the development of powerful technology probably makes these fields more cautious/âless rash, fewer âunwanted childrenâ [probably worse life outcomes], etc. Then abortion access seems good.
Maybe related: in general when maximizing, I think itâs probably best to finding the most important 1-3 things, then focus on those things. (e.g. for temp of my house, focus on temp of thermostat + temp of outside + insulation quality, ignore body heat & similar small things)
Thanks for this detail! Yeah, I agree that encouraging/âsupporting people having kids is a more effective approach, and that other things matter more from a total longtermist perspective. (In particular, if human extinction does occur in the near term, then factory farming plausibly outweighs everything good weâve ever done. Either way, we have much to catch up on.)
To be more precise on the question, do you think that with all else equal, choosing to have a child is better than choosing to abort, assuming that the child will live a net good life (in expectation)? (This is what I was trying to capture with the word âintrinsicââwithout accounting for concerns of norms, opportunity costs, other interventions dominating, etc i.e. as a unitary yes-or-no decision.)
Your advice on optimization is definitely correct, and I have many regrets about the framing of this post, some of which I enumerate here.