a more accurate title for my post would be “population ethics without objective axiology.”
Perhaps consider changing it to that, then? Since I’m a subjectivist, I consider all axiologies subjective—and therefore “without axiology” is very different from “without objective axiology”.
(I feel like I would have understood that our arguments were consistent either if the title had been different, or if I’d read the post more carefully—but alas, neither condition held.)
I’d also consider that humans are biological creatures with “interests” – a system-1 “monkey brain” with its own needs, separate (or at least separable) from idealized self-identities that the rational, planning part of our brain may come up with. So, if we also want to fulfill these interests/needs, that could be justification for a quasi-hedonistic view or for the type of mixed view that you advocate?
I like this justification for hedonism. I suspect that a version of this is the only justification that will actually hold up in the long term, once we’ve more thoroughly internalized qualia anti-realism.
Makes sense, glad we’re on the same page!
Perhaps consider changing it to that, then? Since I’m a subjectivist, I consider all axiologies subjective—and therefore “without axiology” is very different from “without objective axiology”.
(I feel like I would have understood that our arguments were consistent either if the title had been different, or if I’d read the post more carefully—but alas, neither condition held.)
I like this justification for hedonism. I suspect that a version of this is the only justification that will actually hold up in the long term, once we’ve more thoroughly internalized qualia anti-realism.