Got it, I think you’re quite right on one reading. I should have been clearer about what I meant, which is something like
there is a defensible reading of that claim which maps to some negative utilitarian claim (without necessarily being a central example)
furthermore I expect many issuers of such sentiments are motivated by basically pretheoretic negative utilitarian insight
E.g. imagine a minor steelification (which loses the aesthetic and rhetorical strength) like “nobody’s positive wellbeing (implicitly stemming from their freedom) can/should be celebrated until everyone has freedom (implicitly necessary to escape negative wellbeing)” which is consistent with some kind of lexical negative utilitarianism.
You’re right that if we insist that ‘freedom’ be interpreted identically in both places (parsimonious, granted, though I think the symmetry is better explained by aesthetic/rhetorical concerns) another reading explicitly neglects the marginal benefit of lifting merely some people out of illiberty. Which is only consistent with utilitarianism if we use an unusual aggregation theory (i.e. minimising) - though I have also seen this discussed under negative utilitarianism.
Anecdata: as someone whose (past) political background and involvement (waning!) is definitely some kind of lefty, and who, if it weren’t for various x- and s-risks, would plausibly consider some form (my form, naturally!) of lefty politics to be highly important (if not highly tractable), my reading of that claim at least goes something like the first one. I might not be representative in that respect.
I have no doubt that many people expressing that kind of sentiment would still celebrate marginal ‘releases’, while considering it wrong to celebrate further the fruits of such freedom, ignoring others’ lack of freedom.
Yeah, I definitely think that also many people from left-leaning spaces who come to EA also become sympathetic to suffering focused work in my experience, which also seems consistent with this.
Got it, I think you’re quite right on one reading. I should have been clearer about what I meant, which is something like
there is a defensible reading of that claim which maps to some negative utilitarian claim (without necessarily being a central example)
furthermore I expect many issuers of such sentiments are motivated by basically pretheoretic negative utilitarian insight
E.g. imagine a minor steelification (which loses the aesthetic and rhetorical strength) like “nobody’s positive wellbeing (implicitly stemming from their freedom) can/should be celebrated until everyone has freedom (implicitly necessary to escape negative wellbeing)” which is consistent with some kind of lexical negative utilitarianism.
You’re right that if we insist that ‘freedom’ be interpreted identically in both places (parsimonious, granted, though I think the symmetry is better explained by aesthetic/rhetorical concerns) another reading explicitly neglects the marginal benefit of lifting merely some people out of illiberty. Which is only consistent with utilitarianism if we use an unusual aggregation theory (i.e. minimising) - though I have also seen this discussed under negative utilitarianism.
Anecdata: as someone whose (past) political background and involvement (waning!) is definitely some kind of lefty, and who, if it weren’t for various x- and s-risks, would plausibly consider some form (my form, naturally!) of lefty politics to be highly important (if not highly tractable), my reading of that claim at least goes something like the first one. I might not be representative in that respect.
I have no doubt that many people expressing that kind of sentiment would still celebrate marginal ‘releases’, while considering it wrong to celebrate further the fruits of such freedom, ignoring others’ lack of freedom.
That makes sense to me.
Yeah, I definitely think that also many people from left-leaning spaces who come to EA also become sympathetic to suffering focused work in my experience, which also seems consistent with this.