Not quite—the idea is that we run into the cluelessness objection when we act for impartial altruistic reasons. Deontological reasoning, and virtue ethics reasoning are different in that when we reason that way, we aren’t making claims about consequences.
If you want to care about the long-run impartial consequences of your actions, then you need to answer Anthony’s argument, either by rejecting it for a specific reason, or finding a way to reason about impartially altruistic actions without running into the problems he outlines.
PS- Your objection makes a lot of sense, but it came across a bit ruder/​ more dismissive than necessary. I’m guessing that’s why it’s been downvoted, and it’s a bit of a shame since I’m sure other readers have similar reactions.
Not quite—the idea is that we run into the cluelessness objection when we act for impartial altruistic reasons. Deontological reasoning, and virtue ethics reasoning are different in that when we reason that way, we aren’t making claims about consequences.
If you want to care about the long-run impartial consequences of your actions, then you need to answer Anthony’s argument, either by rejecting it for a specific reason, or finding a way to reason about impartially altruistic actions without running into the problems he outlines.
PS- Your objection makes a lot of sense, but it came across a bit ruder/​ more dismissive than necessary. I’m guessing that’s why it’s been downvoted, and it’s a bit of a shame since I’m sure other readers have similar reactions.