It strikes me that the above criticisms don’t really seem consequentialist / hedonic utilitarian-focused. I’m curious if other criticisms are, or if some of these are intended to be as such (some complex logic like, “Acting in the standard-morality way will wind up being good for consequentialist reasons in some round-about way”.)
More generally, those specific objections strike me as very weak. I’d expect and hope that people at Open Philanthropy and GiveWell would have better objections.
I personally think this is a conversation worth having, but I can imagine a bunch of reasons people wouldn’t want to. For one thing, it is a PR nightmare!
Thanks for summarizing!
It strikes me that the above criticisms don’t really seem consequentialist / hedonic utilitarian-focused. I’m curious if other criticisms are, or if some of these are intended to be as such (some complex logic like, “Acting in the standard-morality way will wind up being good for consequentialist reasons in some round-about way”.)
More generally, those specific objections strike me as very weak. I’d expect and hope that people at Open Philanthropy and GiveWell would have better objections.
No worries :)
I personally think this is a conversation worth having, but I can imagine a bunch of reasons people wouldn’t want to. For one thing, it is a PR nightmare!