It is hard for me to imagine how youād derive ethics in the way you describe. I canāt imagine a way to guide my actions in a normative sense without thinking about whether the future states my actions bring about are preferable or not.
For instance, if I choose to bring one more person into the world, by having a child (which, incidentally, we just did!), that decision is primarily about what kind of life I want to have, and what commitments I am willing to make, rather than about whether I think the world, in the abstract, is better or not with one more person in it.
For me, that is just describing egoism. Of course many people de facto think about their preferences when making a decision and they often give that a lot of weight, but I see ethics as standing outside of that and the āaltruismā in āEffective altruismā can be partially explained by EAs generally having a low level of egoism which leads to more a selfless, generalizable ethic.
I canāt imagine a way to guide my actions in a normative sense without thinking about whether the future states my actions bring about are preferable or not.
Preferable to whom? Obviously you could think about whether they are preferable to yourself. Iām against the notion that there is such as thing as āpreferableā to no one in particular.
Of course many people de facto think about their preferences when making a decision and they often give that a lot of weight, but I see ethics as standing outside of thatā¦
Hmm, I donāt. I see egoism as an alternative ethical framework, rather than as non-ethical.
Preferable to whom? Obviously you could think about whether they are preferable to yourself. Iām against the notion that there is such as thing as āpreferableā to no one in particular.
Preferable to people in general. I donāt think no one in particular means no one. When people set speed limits on roads they are for no one in particular, but it seems reasonable to assume people donāt want to die in car accidents and legislate accordingly.
Hmm, I donāt. I see egoism as an alternative ethical framework, rather than as non-ethical.
I know that egoism is technically an ethical framework, but I donāt see how it could ever get meaningful rules to come out of it that I think weād agree weād want as a society. It would be hard to even come up with rules like āYou shouldnāt murder othersā if your starting point is your own ego and maximizing your own self interest. But I donāt know much about egoism so I am probably missing something here.
I wouldnāt say speed limits are for no one in particular; Iād say they are for everyone in general, because they are a case where a preference (not dying in car accidents) is universal. But many preferences are not universal.
I know that egoism is technically an ethical framework, but I donāt see how it could ever get meaningful rules to come out of it that I think weād agree weād want as a society. It would be hard to even come up with rules like āYou shouldnāt murder othersā if your starting point is your own ego and maximizing your own self interest.
Thanksā¦ I would like to write more about this sometime. As a starting point, think through in vivid detail what would actually happen to you and your life if you committed murder. Would things go well for you after that? Does it seem like a path to happiness and success in life? Would you advise a friend to do it? If not, then I think you have egoistic reasons against murder.
It is hard for me to imagine how youād derive ethics in the way you describe. I canāt imagine a way to guide my actions in a normative sense without thinking about whether the future states my actions bring about are preferable or not.
For me, that is just describing egoism. Of course many people de facto think about their preferences when making a decision and they often give that a lot of weight, but I see ethics as standing outside of that and the āaltruismā in āEffective altruismā can be partially explained by EAs generally having a low level of egoism which leads to more a selfless, generalizable ethic.
Preferable to whom? Obviously you could think about whether they are preferable to yourself. Iām against the notion that there is such as thing as āpreferableā to no one in particular.
Hmm, I donāt. I see egoism as an alternative ethical framework, rather than as non-ethical.
Preferable to people in general. I donāt think no one in particular means no one. When people set speed limits on roads they are for no one in particular, but it seems reasonable to assume people donāt want to die in car accidents and legislate accordingly.
I know that egoism is technically an ethical framework, but I donāt see how it could ever get meaningful rules to come out of it that I think weād agree weād want as a society. It would be hard to even come up with rules like āYou shouldnāt murder othersā if your starting point is your own ego and maximizing your own self interest. But I donāt know much about egoism so I am probably missing something here.
I wouldnāt say speed limits are for no one in particular; Iād say they are for everyone in general, because they are a case where a preference (not dying in car accidents) is universal. But many preferences are not universal.
Thanksā¦ I would like to write more about this sometime. As a starting point, think through in vivid detail what would actually happen to you and your life if you committed murder. Would things go well for you after that? Does it seem like a path to happiness and success in life? Would you advise a friend to do it? If not, then I think you have egoistic reasons against murder.