(I unfortunately donât have time to engage with the rest of this comment, just want to clarify the following:)
Indeed, bracketing off âinfinite ethics shenanigansâ could be seen as an implicit acknowledgment of such a de-facto breakdown or boundary in the practical scope of impartiality.
Sorry this wasnât clear â I in fact donât think weâre justified in ignoring infinite ethics. In the footnote youâre quoting, I was simply erring on the side of being generous to the non-clueless view, to make things easier to follow. So my core objection doesnât reduce to âproblems with infinitiesâ, rather I object to ignoring considerations that dominate our impact for no particular reason other than practical expedience. :) (ETA: Which isnât to say we need to solve infinite ethics to be justified in anything.)
I was simply erring on the side of being generous to the non-clueless view
Right, I suspected that â hence the remark about infinite ethics considerations counting as an additional problem to whatâs addressed here. My point was that the non-clueless view addressed here (finite case) already implicitly entails scope limitations, so if one embraces that view, the question seems to be what the limitation (or discounting) in scope is, not whether there is one.
(I unfortunately donât have time to engage with the rest of this comment, just want to clarify the following:)
Sorry this wasnât clear â I in fact donât think weâre justified in ignoring infinite ethics. In the footnote youâre quoting, I was simply erring on the side of being generous to the non-clueless view, to make things easier to follow. So my core objection doesnât reduce to âproblems with infinitiesâ, rather I object to ignoring considerations that dominate our impact for no particular reason other than practical expedience. :) (ETA: Which isnât to say we need to solve infinite ethics to be justified in anything.)
Right, I suspected that â hence the remark about infinite ethics considerations counting as an additional problem to whatâs addressed here. My point was that the non-clueless view addressed here (finite case) already implicitly entails scope limitations, so if one embraces that view, the question seems to be what the limitation (or discounting) in scope is, not whether there is one.