Sorry, how is that a straw man? I meant that comment perfectly sincerely. Publius raised the worry that āsuch distinctions are too complex for a not insignificant proportion of the publicā, and my response simply explained that I expect this isnāt true of those who would be reading my post. I honestly have no idea what āstandardā 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 hadnāt seen his post. Will need to find time to read it. From the quotes youāve given, it looks like we may be discussing different topics. Iām addressing what is actually justified by utilitarian theory. Heās talking about ways in which the tools might be misused. It isnāt immediately obvious that we necessarily disagree. (Everything I say about ānaive utilitarianismā is, in effect, to stress ways that the theory, if misunderstood, could be misused.)
I didnāt downvote, but Iād guess that Lauren and perhaps others understood your āAnyone sophisticated enough to be following these discussions in the first place should be capable of grasping this point.ā to mean something like āIf you, dear interlocutor, were sophisticated enough then youād grasp my point.ā
(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.)
Sorry, how is that a straw man? I meant that comment perfectly sincerely. Publius raised the worry that āsuch distinctions are too complex for a not insignificant proportion of the publicā, and my response simply explained that I expect this isnāt true of those who would be reading my post. I honestly have no idea what āstandardā 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 hadnāt seen his post. Will need to find time to read it. From the quotes youāve given, it looks like we may be discussing different topics. Iām addressing what is actually justified by utilitarian theory. Heās talking about ways in which the tools might be misused. It isnāt immediately obvious that we necessarily disagree. (Everything I say about ānaive utilitarianismā is, in effect, to stress ways that the theory, if misunderstood, could be misused.)
I would genuinely appreciate an explanation for the downvotes. Thereās evidently been some miscommunication here, and Iām not sure what it is.
I didnāt downvote, but Iād guess that Lauren and perhaps others understood your āAnyone sophisticated enough to be following these discussions in the first place should be capable of grasping this point.ā to mean something like āIf you, dear interlocutor, were sophisticated enough then youād grasp my point.ā
(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.)