My understanding of this (blog) post is a restating of the drowning child thought experiment in OP’s voice, with their confident personal writing style. I’m not certain about their intentions behind the article.
In terms using the drowning child argument in general, particularly when explaining what is EA to people who have never heard it before, I do still think it’s useful; people understand the general meaning behind it even when only half-explained in 45 seconds by non-philsophers.
That’s fair, if it’s more of an expository exercise for OP’s own sake, I can respect that. But
people understand the general meaning behind it even when only half-explained in 45 seconds by non-philsophers.
is exactly why I’m not a fan of using it to browbeat people. It is simple and makes its point clear without you needing to tell people how immoral they are.
My understanding of this (blog) post is a restating of the drowning child thought experiment in OP’s voice, with their confident personal writing style. I’m not certain about their intentions behind the article.
In terms using the drowning child argument in general, particularly when explaining what is EA to people who have never heard it before, I do still think it’s useful; people understand the general meaning behind it even when only half-explained in 45 seconds by non-philsophers.
That’s fair, if it’s more of an expository exercise for OP’s own sake, I can respect that. But
is exactly why I’m not a fan of using it to browbeat people. It is simple and makes its point clear without you needing to tell people how immoral they are.