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.)
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.)