The dinner I learned the most from was the one we had with Harvard College Faith and Action, a Christian student group. I could identify three main differences in perspective (there are likely a bunch of others too):
(1) Many of the Christian students ascribed to non-consequential ethics systems. Their goal was to “act as Jesus would.” While this would have consequences they considered good, they were maximizing for acting like he would, not for the outcomes acting like him would cause.
(2) A corollary of “act as Jesus would” is “help thy neighbor”; many of the students we talked to felt a need to prioritize local aid, or at least do it along side non-local aid.
(3) When cornered into least-convenient-possible-world thought experiments, most of the Christian students said that it was better to “save” one life (in the sense of salvation, i.e. ensuring one more soul went to heaven) than to save any number of physical lives. To be fair, they were quite resistant to this question, mostly saying that they supported the idea of local or international aid through Christian organizations who would also encourage the spread of Christian principles.
1). Jesus was very strong on giving to the poor—not to convince people of God but because they were poor and in need—Ananias was struck down (only person in New Testament I think) because he failed to tithe to the poor. People came to him asking to follow him (meaning high probability of salvation) - he said to give ALL of their money away to the poor first.
2). loving thy neighbour is all about loving people you aren’t familiar with or are even afraid of.
3). you just kind of have to accept if they believe in eternal damnation—infinite QALYs for each person saved.
Do you remember any of the questions/reactions you got from the non-EA students at those dinners?
The dinner I learned the most from was the one we had with Harvard College Faith and Action, a Christian student group. I could identify three main differences in perspective (there are likely a bunch of others too):
(1) Many of the Christian students ascribed to non-consequential ethics systems. Their goal was to “act as Jesus would.” While this would have consequences they considered good, they were maximizing for acting like he would, not for the outcomes acting like him would cause.
(2) A corollary of “act as Jesus would” is “help thy neighbor”; many of the students we talked to felt a need to prioritize local aid, or at least do it along side non-local aid.
(3) When cornered into least-convenient-possible-world thought experiments, most of the Christian students said that it was better to “save” one life (in the sense of salvation, i.e. ensuring one more soul went to heaven) than to save any number of physical lives. To be fair, they were quite resistant to this question, mostly saying that they supported the idea of local or international aid through Christian organizations who would also encourage the spread of Christian principles.
That’s interesting to hear about their beliefs for #2. By contrast, the leaders at my church specifially say that everyone is our neighbor.
Can you argue on christian grounds—for example:
1). Jesus was very strong on giving to the poor—not to convince people of God but because they were poor and in need—Ananias was struck down (only person in New Testament I think) because he failed to tithe to the poor. People came to him asking to follow him (meaning high probability of salvation) - he said to give ALL of their money away to the poor first.
2). loving thy neighbour is all about loving people you aren’t familiar with or are even afraid of.
3). you just kind of have to accept if they believe in eternal damnation—infinite QALYs for each person saved.