Iād guess that there are concrete enough answers (although you may need to provide more info), but there are different views with different approaches, and thereās some tricky math involved in many of them.
Pummer is aiming at coherent preferences (moral views), not social contract/ācoordination mechanisms/āinstitutions. Itās a piece of foundational moral philosophy, not an applied piece.
Do you think his view isnāt concrete enough, specifically? What would you expect?
>Iād guess that there are concrete enough answers (although you may need to provide more info), but there are different views with different approaches, and thereās some tricky math involved in many of them.
Yeah, Iām tempted to write a post here with chicken setup and collect the answers of different people, maybe with some control questions like āwould you press a button that instantaneously and painlessly kills all the life on earthā, so Iād have a reason to disregard them without reading. But, eh
>Pummer is aiming at coherent preferences (moral views), not social contract/ācoordination mechanisms/āinstitutions.
and my opinion is that he is confused what is values and what is coordination problems, so he tries to bake the solutions of coordination problems into values. Iām fine with the level of concreteness he operates under, itās not like i had high expectations from academic philosophy
Iād guess that there are concrete enough answers (although you may need to provide more info), but there are different views with different approaches, and thereās some tricky math involved in many of them.
Pummer is aiming at coherent preferences (moral views), not social contract/ācoordination mechanisms/āinstitutions. Itās a piece of foundational moral philosophy, not an applied piece.
Do you think his view isnāt concrete enough, specifically? What would you expect?
>Iād guess that there are concrete enough answers (although you may need to provide more info), but there are different views with different approaches, and thereās some tricky math involved in many of them.
Yeah, Iām tempted to write a post here with chicken setup and collect the answers of different people, maybe with some control questions like āwould you press a button that instantaneously and painlessly kills all the life on earthā, so Iād have a reason to disregard them without reading. But, eh
>Pummer is aiming at coherent preferences (moral views), not social contract/ācoordination mechanisms/āinstitutions.
and my opinion is that he is confused what is values and what is coordination problems, so he tries to bake the solutions of coordination problems into values. Iām fine with the level of concreteness he operates under, itās not like i had high expectations from academic philosophy