For instance the “solution” to the illegal immigration problem omits the entire point of seeking refuge from a country to begin with, that those refugees are hoping for a better life
I’m one of those who think that the problem of the enormous wealth inequality between rich and very poor countries—especially those in sub-Saharan Africa—is the current equivalent of what the fight against slavery was in the 18th and 19th centuries. It’s an outrage that there are still people dying of hunger or malnutrition.
That said, many alarmists about “uncontrolled” immigration can also build up consequentialist arguments. I’ve read that they say that what the inmigrants invest in paying for their dangerous, more or less clandestine journeys to rich countries should be invested in their own countries to prosper economically in their own lands. So if we make it difficult for them to experience dangerous, expensive, and unprofitable “uncontrolled” emigration (it is said that most limit themselves to subsisting precariously in the rich countries where they arrive undocumented), we would be doing them a favor (consequentialism).
I think EA has some major problems especially when it gets into long-termism, and measuring extreme threats that are extremely unlikely against sure threats that are measurably bad.
If we start from the certain fact that moral evolution has existed, exists, and must continue to exist, the best consequentialist and long-termist calculation is to promote moral evolution. Improving moral behavior within the framework of cultural evolution would lead us to a “virtue ethics” that provides the best results in all areas that can be affected by the intentional, organized, and massive action of a humanity that has evolved morally in the sense of empathy, benevolence, rationality, and altruism (as effective as possible).
Attempts to improve moral behavior in an intelligent and organized way go back a long way: the monasticism invented by Buddhists, the “spiritual exercises” of the Stoics or Epicureans (there is a famous book by Pierre Hadot on this). Today we have many more resources in this regard.
Sigmund Freud, who was by no means a fool, thought that socialism would not improve human life because changing economic structures would not change moral nature. However, he himself admitted that there were psychological resources through which the most pressing human instincts (including the libido) could be manipulated to generate something resembling “holy love.”
The best consequentialism is one that rationally analyzes the reality of the factors involved in any issue deemed a priority. If the priority is altruism, moral judgment must take into account the reality of the moral agent, which is human nature (the human being, the “cultural animal”).
I’m one of those who think that the problem of the enormous wealth inequality between rich and very poor countries—especially those in sub-Saharan Africa—is the current equivalent of what the fight against slavery was in the 18th and 19th centuries. It’s an outrage that there are still people dying of hunger or malnutrition.
That said, many alarmists about “uncontrolled” immigration can also build up consequentialist arguments. I’ve read that they say that what the inmigrants invest in paying for their dangerous, more or less clandestine journeys to rich countries should be invested in their own countries to prosper economically in their own lands. So if we make it difficult for them to experience dangerous, expensive, and unprofitable “uncontrolled” emigration (it is said that most limit themselves to subsisting precariously in the rich countries where they arrive undocumented), we would be doing them a favor (consequentialism).
If we start from the certain fact that moral evolution has existed, exists, and must continue to exist, the best consequentialist and long-termist calculation is to promote moral evolution. Improving moral behavior within the framework of cultural evolution would lead us to a “virtue ethics” that provides the best results in all areas that can be affected by the intentional, organized, and massive action of a humanity that has evolved morally in the sense of empathy, benevolence, rationality, and altruism (as effective as possible).
Attempts to improve moral behavior in an intelligent and organized way go back a long way: the monasticism invented by Buddhists, the “spiritual exercises” of the Stoics or Epicureans (there is a famous book by Pierre Hadot on this). Today we have many more resources in this regard.
Sigmund Freud, who was by no means a fool, thought that socialism would not improve human life because changing economic structures would not change moral nature. However, he himself admitted that there were psychological resources through which the most pressing human instincts (including the libido) could be manipulated to generate something resembling “holy love.”
The best consequentialism is one that rationally analyzes the reality of the factors involved in any issue deemed a priority. If the priority is altruism, moral judgment must take into account the reality of the moral agent, which is human nature (the human being, the “cultural animal”).