I wish you would engage more with other philosophers who speak about utilitarianism, especially since (reading the comments on this thread) you appear to be taken as having some kind of authority on the topic within the EA community even though other prominent philosophers disagree with your takes.
Chris Bertram posted this today for example. Here’s two quotes from the post:
”Don’t get me wrong utilitarianism is a beautiful, systematic theory, a lovely tool to help navigate acting in the world in a consistent and transparent matter. When used prudently it’s a good way to keep track of one’s assumptions and the relationship between means and ends. But like all tools it has limitations. And my claim is that the tradition refuses to do systematic post-mortems on when the tool is implicated in moral and political debacles. Yes, somewhat ironically, the effective altruism community (in which there is plenty to admire) tried to address this in terms of, I think, project failure. But that falls short in willing to learn when utilitarianism is likely to make one a danger to innocent others.”
“By framing the problem as Mr. Bankman-Fried’s “integrity” and not the underlying tool, MacAskill will undoubtedly manage to learn no serious lesson at all. I am not implicating utilitarianism in the apparent ponzi scheme. But Bankman-Fried’s own description back in April of his what he was up to should have set off alarm bells among those who associated with him–commentators noticed it bore a clear resemblance to a Ponzi.+ (By CrookedTimber standards I am a friend of markets.) Of course, and I say this especially to my friends who are utilitarians; I have not just discussed a problem only within utilitarianism; philosophy as a professional discipline always assumes its own clean hands, or finds ways to sanitize the existing dirt.”
Finally, you should perhaps consider holding yourself to a higher standard, as a philosophy professor, than to straw-man people who are genuinely trying to engage with you philosophically, as you did here:
“I don’t think we should be dishonest. Given the strong case for utilitarianism in theory, I think it’s important to be clear that it doesn’t justify criminal or other crazy reckless behaviour in practice. Anyone sophisticated enough to be following these discussions in the first place should be capable of grasping this point.”
Sorry, how is that a straw man? I meant that comment perfectly sincerely. Publius raised the worry that “such distinctions are too complex for a not insignificant proportion of the public”, and my response simply explained that I expect this isn’t true of those who would be reading my post. I honestly have no idea what “standard” you think this violates. I think you must be understanding the exchange very differently from how I understood it. Can you explain your perspective further?
re: Bertram: thanks for the pointer, I hadn’t seen his post. Will need to find time to read it. From the quotes you’ve given, it looks like we may be discussing different topics. I’m addressing what is actually justified by utilitarian theory. He’s talking about ways in which the tools might be misused. It isn’t immediately obvious that we necessarily disagree. (Everything I say about “naive utilitarianism” is, in effect, to stress ways that the theory, if misunderstood, could be misused.)
I didn’t downvote, but I’d guess that Lauren and perhaps others understood your “Anyone sophisticated enough to be following these discussions in the first place should be capable of grasping this point.” to mean something like “If you, dear interlocutor, were sophisticated enough then you’d grasp my point.”
(Not confident in this though, as this interpretation reads to me like an insult rather than a straw man.)
Huh, okay, thanks. fwiw, I definitely did not intend any such subtext. (For one thing, Publius did not themselves deny the relevant distinction, but merely worried that some other ppl in the general population would struggle to follow it. I was explicitly expressing my confidence in the sophistication of all involved in this discussion.)
I wish you would engage more with other philosophers who speak about utilitarianism, especially since (reading the comments on this thread) you appear to be taken as having some kind of authority on the topic within the EA community even though other prominent philosophers disagree with your takes.
Chris Bertram posted this today for example. Here’s two quotes from the post:
”Don’t get me wrong utilitarianism is a beautiful, systematic theory, a lovely tool to help navigate acting in the world in a consistent and transparent matter. When used prudently it’s a good way to keep track of one’s assumptions and the relationship between means and ends. But like all tools it has limitations. And my claim is that the tradition refuses to do systematic post-mortems on when the tool is implicated in moral and political debacles. Yes, somewhat ironically, the effective altruism community (in which there is plenty to admire) tried to address this in terms of, I think, project failure. But that falls short in willing to learn when utilitarianism is likely to make one a danger to innocent others.”
“By framing the problem as Mr. Bankman-Fried’s “integrity” and not the underlying tool, MacAskill will undoubtedly manage to learn no serious lesson at all. I am not implicating utilitarianism in the apparent ponzi scheme. But Bankman-Fried’s own description back in April of his what he was up to should have set off alarm bells among those who associated with him–commentators noticed it bore a clear resemblance to a Ponzi.+ (By CrookedTimber standards I am a friend of markets.) Of course, and I say this especially to my friends who are utilitarians; I have not just discussed a problem only within utilitarianism; philosophy as a professional discipline always assumes its own clean hands, or finds ways to sanitize the existing dirt.”
Finally, you should perhaps consider holding yourself to a higher standard, as a philosophy professor, than to straw-man people who are genuinely trying to engage with you philosophically, as you did here:
“I don’t think we should be dishonest. Given the strong case for utilitarianism in theory, I think it’s important to be clear that it doesn’t justify criminal or other crazy reckless behaviour in practice. Anyone sophisticated enough to be following these discussions in the first place should be capable of grasping this point.”
Sorry, how is that a straw man? I meant that comment perfectly sincerely. Publius raised the worry that “such distinctions are too complex for a not insignificant proportion of the public”, and my response simply explained that I expect this isn’t true of those who would be reading my post. I honestly have no idea what “standard” you think this violates. I think you must be understanding the exchange very differently from how I understood it. Can you explain your perspective further?
re: Bertram: thanks for the pointer, I hadn’t seen his post. Will need to find time to read it. From the quotes you’ve given, it looks like we may be discussing different topics. I’m addressing what is actually justified by utilitarian theory. He’s talking about ways in which the tools might be misused. It isn’t immediately obvious that we necessarily disagree. (Everything I say about “naive utilitarianism” is, in effect, to stress ways that the theory, if misunderstood, could be misused.)
I would genuinely appreciate an explanation for the downvotes. There’s evidently been some miscommunication here, and I’m not sure what it is.
I didn’t downvote, but I’d guess that Lauren and perhaps others understood your “Anyone sophisticated enough to be following these discussions in the first place should be capable of grasping this point.” to mean something like “If you, dear interlocutor, were sophisticated enough then you’d grasp my point.”
(Not confident in this though, as this interpretation reads to me like an insult rather than a straw man.)
Huh, okay, thanks. fwiw, I definitely did not intend any such subtext. (For one thing, Publius did not themselves deny the relevant distinction, but merely worried that some other ppl in the general population would struggle to follow it. I was explicitly expressing my confidence in the sophistication of all involved in this discussion.)