Hi Alex, thanks for clarifying what you had in mind. I very commonly hear people raising the worry about procreative duties (I give another, more explicit example in the very same footnote), so it seemed most natural to interpret you as gesturing at that common concern, but I apologize if I got that wrong.
Your suggested weaker reading is a bit puzzling though, since even if many feminists happen to think that procreative decisions are not âsubject to moral evaluationâ even in the weakest sense, that doesnât seem to be a basic commitment of feminism in the way that, say, being pro-choice about abortion and procreative duties is. Surely someone could (easily!) be a feminist in good standingâaccepting all the basic commitments of the viewâwhile thinking that one always has some reason to choose to create a good life (while nonetheless retaining bodily rights and prerogatives to decide otherwise).
(I agree that none of this is central to your paper.)
Edited to add: I didnât intend to give any named examples of âlow-decoupling academicsââthat would be rather rude! The footnote is rather supporting my claim that âitâs incredibly common for (even otherwise intelligent) people to affirm the following bad argument...â
More substantively: I think thereâs still a âno moralism â no goodâ fallacy even on the weaker interpretation. If you think itâs a âcostâ or âinappropriateâ to âsubject a decision or domain to moral evaluation,â then it seems like you must have more in mind by âmoral evaluationâ (perhaps some susceptibility to external blame or criticism) than just recognizing that one choice may do more good than another (in a way that gives the agent some reason to make that choice). For example, presumably we shouldnât âmoralizeâ someoneâs decision about whether to keep their kidneys. But itâs still clearly good to save the lives of dialysis patients.
Thanks for responding and clarifying. You might be right that I overstate the point when I describe the commitment as âbasicâ, at least in the sense that an opposition to this particular claim in population ethics is not central to feminist writing or activism. But given the role moralised views about procreation have played in the subordination of women, there does seem to be a tension between this feature of longtermism and feminism as a political project, and thatâs what I was trying to get at.
Iâm still worried about the moralism of longtermism here, even in light of the fallacy you formulate against my weaker claim. This isnât necessarily because I think longtermists will subject individuals to criticism for their choices. Itâs more because I understand longtermism as a view about our âcollective prioritiesâ which is supposed to have a range of practical upshots. If rejecting the intuition of neutrality is central to that project, then itâs hard to see how it can avoid a moralism about procreation. Longtermists should want people to think and act as if having kids is a morally good thing to do, and MacAskill, as I recall anyway, is pretty open about this.
(Note thereâs plenty more to say about moralism than I say in my previous comment and, as I suggested before, about all of this than I say in that passage of the paper.)
Oh, I absolutely agree that we âshould want people to think and act as if having kids is a morally good thing to do.â Just as we should think of kidney donation, of adoption, of all sorts of very personal decisions that should be 100% up to individuals to decide for themselves, even though they are good things to do! The question is what further (if anything) follows that is concerning about any of this, such as to warrant the pejorative term âmoralismâ.
I donât think a historical correlation between accepting a true evaluative fact and responding badly and wrongly to it is good grounds for rejecting the true claim. (Thatâs actually precisely the pattern of practical reasoning that I take to be constitutive of âlow decouplingâ.) We should instead reject the supplemental ânaive instrumentalistâ assumptions that led people to respond badly and wrongly to the evaluative truth in question.
Again, Iâm worriedâand I think people with feminist commitments in general will be worried â about an influential view about our collective priorities which inculcates in people the belief that people can do something morally good by having kids. Thatâs a concern about the politics of longtermism, which I characterise (in passing!) in terms of moralising procreative choice. Longtermists clearly donât share this concern, nor do you.
I donât take a view on the âevaluative factâ of whether the intuition of neutrality is correct; rather, my general argument in the paper is that longtermists have been unwilling to engage with political thought and as a result arrive at political positions that are both ambiguous and unattractive. Your original post and subsequent comments seem illustrative in this regard. Attempting to construe some disagreement about longtermism in terms of a simple logical fallacy serves, in my view, to conceal lots of the detail relevant to criticisms of the view, as I have alluded to in my responses. Likewise, to disparagingly characterise positions as âlow-decouplingâ looks like asserting the abstract and impartial perspective as the authority for making claims about the social world, which is precisely what is at stake in debates between longtermism and its critics.
Probably we should leave it here, although feel free to send me your future writing on the topic, as Iâd be interested in taking a look.
Thanks for the exchange. I absolutely do endorse taking âthe abstract and impartial perspectiveâ as authoritative for assessing public policy and related social issues. (The alternative strikes me as simply indulging in uncritical vibes and bias.)
For my future reference, is there an alternative (less derogatory or stigmatizing) label youâd recommend that I use in place of âlow decouplingâ to pick out your alternative approach to normative assessment? It strikes me as an incredibly important methodological disagreement, and itâs useful to have names for different positions.
It is certainly an important disagreement. There are loads of literatures in political theory that aim to shed light on the way different political problems and practical contexts might properly shape our normative conclusions. Longtermists seem to ignore those debates, which might be fine if their view wasnât, as I try and show in the paper, deeply political.
Views that take seriously political concepts, constraints and contexts do not indulge in âuncritical vibes and biasâ. Itâs partly effective altruismâs tendency to ignore questions about politicsâfor example, about power, democracy and the processes which produce social deprivationâthat make it a fundamentally conservative movement, as many critics have pointed out.
Iâm not sure whether I fully understand what âlow decouplingâ is, as I came across the idea for the first time in your post and have looked at it only briefly. But yeah, I donât think it will be a useful concept around which to locate disagreements between longtermists and critics, although that will depend on the specifics. Iâm not sure there is a straightforward term that will carve up the field. The safest approach is to engage with the substantive details of particular argumentsâthatâs what I at least try to do in the paper!
Would you like to suggest a recommended reading that best advances your general perspective here while seriously addressing the charge of uncritical vibes and bias?
From my perspective, it seems like youâre just flatly ignoring my concerns (simply asserting that you âdo not indulge in âuncritical vibes and biasââ doesnât allay my concerns, any more than my simply asserting, without further explanation, that impartial moral theorists of my ilk do not ignore questions about power, democracy, etc., would allay yours). One reason Iâm inclined to ignore certain academic literatures is that the participants in those literatures seem to take for granted certain misguided foundational assumptions that I take to undermine their entire enterprise. Given my starting perspective, itâs not clear why I should expect to learn anything from reading people who strike me as deeply confused and donât say anything that addresses my fundamental concerns about their approach.
I would like to see more productive engagement between the two perspectives. But that requires both sides to make some effort to understand and address the otherâs concerns.
(I may write more about the substance of your paper at some point, but something that annoyed me a lot when reading it was that you largely seemed to be uncritically laundering the complaints of public critics like Emile Torres, without any apparent understanding ofâand engagement withâwhy longtermists disagree. The suggestion that our approach is âfundamentally conservativeâ strikes me as particularly groundless, and indicative of unprincipled, vibes-based criticism. But if nothing else, I guess itâs at least helpful to have the criticisms collated in one place, and maybe if I take a stab at addressing them at some point that would be a step towards more mutual engagement. You may also be interested in the final section of my paper, âWhy Not Effective Altruism?â where I respond to the âpoliticalâ critiques of Srinivasan and others.)
Hi Alex, thanks for clarifying what you had in mind. I very commonly hear people raising the worry about procreative duties (I give another, more explicit example in the very same footnote), so it seemed most natural to interpret you as gesturing at that common concern, but I apologize if I got that wrong.
Your suggested weaker reading is a bit puzzling though, since even if many feminists happen to think that procreative decisions are not âsubject to moral evaluationâ even in the weakest sense, that doesnât seem to be a basic commitment of feminism in the way that, say, being pro-choice about abortion and procreative duties is. Surely someone could (easily!) be a feminist in good standingâaccepting all the basic commitments of the viewâwhile thinking that one always has some reason to choose to create a good life (while nonetheless retaining bodily rights and prerogatives to decide otherwise).
(I agree that none of this is central to your paper.)
Edited to add: I didnât intend to give any named examples of âlow-decoupling academicsââthat would be rather rude! The footnote is rather supporting my claim that âitâs incredibly common for (even otherwise intelligent) people to affirm the following bad argument...â
More substantively: I think thereâs still a âno moralism â no goodâ fallacy even on the weaker interpretation. If you think itâs a âcostâ or âinappropriateâ to âsubject a decision or domain to moral evaluation,â then it seems like you must have more in mind by âmoral evaluationâ (perhaps some susceptibility to external blame or criticism) than just recognizing that one choice may do more good than another (in a way that gives the agent some reason to make that choice). For example, presumably we shouldnât âmoralizeâ someoneâs decision about whether to keep their kidneys. But itâs still clearly good to save the lives of dialysis patients.
Hi Richard,
Thanks for responding and clarifying. You might be right that I overstate the point when I describe the commitment as âbasicâ, at least in the sense that an opposition to this particular claim in population ethics is not central to feminist writing or activism. But given the role moralised views about procreation have played in the subordination of women, there does seem to be a tension between this feature of longtermism and feminism as a political project, and thatâs what I was trying to get at.
Iâm still worried about the moralism of longtermism here, even in light of the fallacy you formulate against my weaker claim. This isnât necessarily because I think longtermists will subject individuals to criticism for their choices. Itâs more because I understand longtermism as a view about our âcollective prioritiesâ which is supposed to have a range of practical upshots. If rejecting the intuition of neutrality is central to that project, then itâs hard to see how it can avoid a moralism about procreation. Longtermists should want people to think and act as if having kids is a morally good thing to do, and MacAskill, as I recall anyway, is pretty open about this.
(Note thereâs plenty more to say about moralism than I say in my previous comment and, as I suggested before, about all of this than I say in that passage of the paper.)
I hope this does something to clarify!
Oh, I absolutely agree that we âshould want people to think and act as if having kids is a morally good thing to do.â Just as we should think of kidney donation, of adoption, of all sorts of very personal decisions that should be 100% up to individuals to decide for themselves, even though they are good things to do! The question is what further (if anything) follows that is concerning about any of this, such as to warrant the pejorative term âmoralismâ.
I donât think a historical correlation between accepting a true evaluative fact and responding badly and wrongly to it is good grounds for rejecting the true claim. (Thatâs actually precisely the pattern of practical reasoning that I take to be constitutive of âlow decouplingâ.) We should instead reject the supplemental ânaive instrumentalistâ assumptions that led people to respond badly and wrongly to the evaluative truth in question.
Again, Iâm worriedâand I think people with feminist commitments in general will be worried â about an influential view about our collective priorities which inculcates in people the belief that people can do something morally good by having kids. Thatâs a concern about the politics of longtermism, which I characterise (in passing!) in terms of moralising procreative choice. Longtermists clearly donât share this concern, nor do you.
I donât take a view on the âevaluative factâ of whether the intuition of neutrality is correct; rather, my general argument in the paper is that longtermists have been unwilling to engage with political thought and as a result arrive at political positions that are both ambiguous and unattractive. Your original post and subsequent comments seem illustrative in this regard. Attempting to construe some disagreement about longtermism in terms of a simple logical fallacy serves, in my view, to conceal lots of the detail relevant to criticisms of the view, as I have alluded to in my responses. Likewise, to disparagingly characterise positions as âlow-decouplingâ looks like asserting the abstract and impartial perspective as the authority for making claims about the social world, which is precisely what is at stake in debates between longtermism and its critics.
Probably we should leave it here, although feel free to send me your future writing on the topic, as Iâd be interested in taking a look.
Thanks for the exchange. I absolutely do endorse taking âthe abstract and impartial perspectiveâ as authoritative for assessing public policy and related social issues. (The alternative strikes me as simply indulging in uncritical vibes and bias.)
For my future reference, is there an alternative (less derogatory or stigmatizing) label youâd recommend that I use in place of âlow decouplingâ to pick out your alternative approach to normative assessment? It strikes me as an incredibly important methodological disagreement, and itâs useful to have names for different positions.
It is certainly an important disagreement. There are loads of literatures in political theory that aim to shed light on the way different political problems and practical contexts might properly shape our normative conclusions. Longtermists seem to ignore those debates, which might be fine if their view wasnât, as I try and show in the paper, deeply political.
Views that take seriously political concepts, constraints and contexts do not indulge in âuncritical vibes and biasâ. Itâs partly effective altruismâs tendency to ignore questions about politicsâfor example, about power, democracy and the processes which produce social deprivationâthat make it a fundamentally conservative movement, as many critics have pointed out.
Iâm not sure whether I fully understand what âlow decouplingâ is, as I came across the idea for the first time in your post and have looked at it only briefly. But yeah, I donât think it will be a useful concept around which to locate disagreements between longtermists and critics, although that will depend on the specifics. Iâm not sure there is a straightforward term that will carve up the field. The safest approach is to engage with the substantive details of particular argumentsâthatâs what I at least try to do in the paper!
Would you like to suggest a recommended reading that best advances your general perspective here while seriously addressing the charge of uncritical vibes and bias?
From my perspective, it seems like youâre just flatly ignoring my concerns (simply asserting that you âdo not indulge in âuncritical vibes and biasââ doesnât allay my concerns, any more than my simply asserting, without further explanation, that impartial moral theorists of my ilk do not ignore questions about power, democracy, etc., would allay yours). One reason Iâm inclined to ignore certain academic literatures is that the participants in those literatures seem to take for granted certain misguided foundational assumptions that I take to undermine their entire enterprise. Given my starting perspective, itâs not clear why I should expect to learn anything from reading people who strike me as deeply confused and donât say anything that addresses my fundamental concerns about their approach.
I would like to see more productive engagement between the two perspectives. But that requires both sides to make some effort to understand and address the otherâs concerns.
(I may write more about the substance of your paper at some point, but something that annoyed me a lot when reading it was that you largely seemed to be uncritically laundering the complaints of public critics like Emile Torres, without any apparent understanding ofâand engagement withâwhy longtermists disagree. The suggestion that our approach is âfundamentally conservativeâ strikes me as particularly groundless, and indicative of unprincipled, vibes-based criticism. But if nothing else, I guess itâs at least helpful to have the criticisms collated in one place, and maybe if I take a stab at addressing them at some point that would be a step towards more mutual engagement. You may also be interested in the final section of my paper, âWhy Not Effective Altruism?â where I respond to the âpoliticalâ critiques of Srinivasan and others.)