I was thinking today what self-identified consequentialists among effective altruism and the rationality movement consider common-sense conclusions of consequentialism might differ significantly from what “mainstream” consequentialists think about. What I mean is that large portions of effective altruism and the rationality movement are fed from LessWrong, which has a disdain of academic philosophy that may have bled into ethics specifically.
For example, on LessWrong, concern for astronomical waste, countless future generations, and their value, is taken as obviously correct. In turn, mitigating existential risk being the right global priority is taken as a given. However, I don’t recall LessWrong keeping track of how its conclusions on consequentialism compare to those of circles of consequentialist intellectuals in philosophy or political science. If I took, I don’t know, a class on practical ethics, or the history of utilitarianism, at university, I’d be very surprised if professors or textbooks mentioned the looming importance of astronomical waste and existential risk reduction.
LessWrong has a slew of other mental habits, tropes, and beliefs that inform its consequentialism, which consequentialism in academic circles don’t share. Intellectuals lacking the “proper” skills of rationality was the impetus for LessWrong in the first place. All this might matter because when someone cites the Future of Humanity Institute as utilitarian in its mission, this could be very confusing to other students of philosophy. Consequentialist philosophers among effective altruism will most likely appeal to other students of philosophy, consequentialist or not. Calling ‘consequentialist’ beliefs which aren’t shared by most other ‘consequentialists’ would be a communication mistake.
I was thinking today what self-identified consequentialists among effective altruism and the rationality movement consider common-sense conclusions of consequentialism might differ significantly from what “mainstream” consequentialists think about. What I mean is that large portions of effective altruism and the rationality movement are fed from LessWrong, which has a disdain of academic philosophy that may have bled into ethics specifically.
For example, on LessWrong, concern for astronomical waste, countless future generations, and their value, is taken as obviously correct. In turn, mitigating existential risk being the right global priority is taken as a given. However, I don’t recall LessWrong keeping track of how its conclusions on consequentialism compare to those of circles of consequentialist intellectuals in philosophy or political science. If I took, I don’t know, a class on practical ethics, or the history of utilitarianism, at university, I’d be very surprised if professors or textbooks mentioned the looming importance of astronomical waste and existential risk reduction.
LessWrong has a slew of other mental habits, tropes, and beliefs that inform its consequentialism, which consequentialism in academic circles don’t share. Intellectuals lacking the “proper” skills of rationality was the impetus for LessWrong in the first place. All this might matter because when someone cites the Future of Humanity Institute as utilitarian in its mission, this could be very confusing to other students of philosophy. Consequentialist philosophers among effective altruism will most likely appeal to other students of philosophy, consequentialist or not. Calling ‘consequentialist’ beliefs which aren’t shared by most other ‘consequentialists’ would be a communication mistake.