Thanks for the post and the response David, that helpfully clarifies where you are coming from. What I was trying to get at is that if you want to say that strong longtermism isnāt the correct conclusion for an impartial altruist who wants to know what to do with their resources, then that would call for more argument as to where the strong longtermistās mistake lies or where the uncertainty should be. On the other hand, it would be perfectly possible to say that the impartial altruist should end up endorsing strong longtermism, while recognising that you yourself are not entirely impartial (and have done with the issue). Personally I also think that strong longtermism relies on very debatable grounds, and I would also put some uncertainty on the claim āthe impartial altruist should be a strong longtermistā- the tricky and interesting thing is working out where we disagree with the longtermist.
(also I recognise as you said that this post is not supposed to be a final word on all these problems, Iām just pointing to where the inquiry could go next).
On the second part of your response, I think that depends on what motivates you and what your general worldview is. I donāt believe in objective moral facts, but I also generally see the world as a place where each and all could do better. For some that helps motivate action, for some it causes angst- I donāt think there is a correct view there.
Separately I do actually worry that strong longtermism only works for consequentialists (though you donāt have to believe in objective morality). The recent paper attempts to make the foundations more robust but the work there is still in its infancy. I guess we will see where it goes.
Thanks for the post and the response David, that helpfully clarifies where you are coming from. What I was trying to get at is that if you want to say that strong longtermism isnāt the correct conclusion for an impartial altruist who wants to know what to do with their resources, then that would call for more argument as to where the strong longtermistās mistake lies or where the uncertainty should be. On the other hand, it would be perfectly possible to say that the impartial altruist should end up endorsing strong longtermism, while recognising that you yourself are not entirely impartial (and have done with the issue). Personally I also think that strong longtermism relies on very debatable grounds, and I would also put some uncertainty on the claim āthe impartial altruist should be a strong longtermistā- the tricky and interesting thing is working out where we disagree with the longtermist.
(also I recognise as you said that this post is not supposed to be a final word on all these problems, Iām just pointing to where the inquiry could go next).
On the second part of your response, I think that depends on what motivates you and what your general worldview is. I donāt believe in objective moral facts, but I also generally see the world as a place where each and all could do better. For some that helps motivate action, for some it causes angst- I donāt think there is a correct view there.
Separately I do actually worry that strong longtermism only works for consequentialists (though you donāt have to believe in objective morality). The recent paper attempts to make the foundations more robust but the work there is still in its infancy. I guess we will see where it goes.
Thanks for the responseāI think we mostly agree, at least to the extent that these questions have answers at all.
Definitely, cheers!