Imagine if there was a post encouraging composting on the forum, and Brian Tomasik wrote a comment pointing out that well-meaning efforts to compost can potentially be quite harmful, under moral views where we care about insects.
And then someone replied to Brianâs comment, âSome useful context is that Brian is the guy who wrote that post saying EAs should actually care about bugs!â
Sure, I guess thatâs relevant, but if I read that reply to Brian, I would read a connotation that âwe should ignore this guy, because has different values on moral circle expansion than we doâ. (Not saying this is your actual intention, but I feel that it could be read that way.)
Itâs not about different opinions of what and who we should care about, itâs about practical agendas that are taken to follow from that even though they donât necessarily. In general, being part of an agenda is important context to view a statement in.
In your example, Iâd agree with Tomasik we ought to care about insects to some degree. I think his advocated agenda of avoiding expanding natural habitats (or composting, although I havenât run into that one), does not follow and is a bad idea morally and practically.
The same thing here. I think the question of whether we should care about fetuses and future people is a valid one, but an agenda trying to disempower women is very much not the right conclusion, and itâs not just neutral under worldviews that seem sensible to me, but rather actively harmful.
Thatâs a fair consideration, but I donât think it really affects whether or not we should open-mindedly consider points raised by others who could be said to have an âagendaâ we disagree with.
Following the example, letâs say someone replied to Brianâs comment, âSome useful context is that Brian wrote this post advocating for opposing rainforest preservationâ. Thatâs true, and Brian could indeed be (uncharitably) said to âhave an agenda trying to disempower environmentalismâ.
If someone else read that reply, they could be forgiven for concluding âwhew, glad someone pointed out that grifterâs nefarious true purpose!â I think that conclusion would undermine anything valuable Brian actually has to say.
Imagine if there was a post encouraging composting on the forum, and Brian Tomasik wrote a comment pointing out that well-meaning efforts to compost can potentially be quite harmful, under moral views where we care about insects.
And then someone replied to Brianâs comment, âSome useful context is that Brian is the guy who wrote that post saying EAs should actually care about bugs!â
Sure, I guess thatâs relevant, but if I read that reply to Brian, I would read a connotation that âwe should ignore this guy, because has different values on moral circle expansion than we doâ. (Not saying this is your actual intention, but I feel that it could be read that way.)
Itâs not about different opinions of what and who we should care about, itâs about practical agendas that are taken to follow from that even though they donât necessarily. In general, being part of an agenda is important context to view a statement in.
In your example, Iâd agree with Tomasik we ought to care about insects to some degree. I think his advocated agenda of avoiding expanding natural habitats (or composting, although I havenât run into that one), does not follow and is a bad idea morally and practically.
The same thing here. I think the question of whether we should care about fetuses and future people is a valid one, but an agenda trying to disempower women is very much not the right conclusion, and itâs not just neutral under worldviews that seem sensible to me, but rather actively harmful.
Thatâs a fair consideration, but I donât think it really affects whether or not we should open-mindedly consider points raised by others who could be said to have an âagendaâ we disagree with.
Following the example, letâs say someone replied to Brianâs comment, âSome useful context is that Brian wrote this post advocating for opposing rainforest preservationâ. Thatâs true, and Brian could indeed be (uncharitably) said to âhave an agenda trying to disempower environmentalismâ.
If someone else read that reply, they could be forgiven for concluding âwhew, glad someone pointed out that grifterâs nefarious true purpose!â I think that conclusion would undermine anything valuable Brian actually has to say.
I didnât downvote you, by the way :)