Thx for starting a discussion on moral philosophy: I find it interesting and important!
It seems to me that you’re wrong when you say that assigning special importance to people closer to oneself makes one a non-consequentialist. One can measure actions by their consequences and measure the consequences in ways that are asymmetric with respect to different people.
Personally I believe that ethics is a property of the human brain and as such it
Has high Kolmogorov complexity (complexity of value). In particular it is not just “maximize pleasure—pain” or something like that (even though pleasure might be a complex concept in itself).
Varies from person to person and between different moments in the life of the same person.
Unlikely to assign equal value to all people since it doesn’t make much sense evolutionary. Yes, I know we are adaption executors rather than fitness optimizers. Nevertheless, the thing we do optimize (which is not evolutionary fitness) came about through evolution and I see no reason it would be symmetrical with respect to permutations of people.
Btw, the last point doesn’t mean you shouldn’t give to people you don’t know. It just means you shouldn’t reach the point your own family is at subsistence level.
Hi Tom,
Thx for starting a discussion on moral philosophy: I find it interesting and important!
It seems to me that you’re wrong when you say that assigning special importance to people closer to oneself makes one a non-consequentialist. One can measure actions by their consequences and measure the consequences in ways that are asymmetric with respect to different people.
Personally I believe that ethics is a property of the human brain and as such it
Has high Kolmogorov complexity (complexity of value). In particular it is not just “maximize pleasure—pain” or something like that (even though pleasure might be a complex concept in itself).
Varies from person to person and between different moments in the life of the same person.
Unlikely to assign equal value to all people since it doesn’t make much sense evolutionary. Yes, I know we are adaption executors rather than fitness optimizers. Nevertheless, the thing we do optimize (which is not evolutionary fitness) came about through evolution and I see no reason it would be symmetrical with respect to permutations of people.
Btw, the last point doesn’t mean you shouldn’t give to people you don’t know. It just means you shouldn’t reach the point your own family is at subsistence level.