With regards to the phrase “the no definition approach”, it seems to me that one should distinguish between the following two concepts:
1) Having an explicit, generally agreed-upon definition, but that being very unspecific and broad.
2) Having no explicit, generally agreed-upon definition at all.
In the below passage, the phrase “the no definition approach” seems to be used to express 1):
The first is the ‘no definition’ approach, suggested to me by Toby Ord:
Longtermism is a philosophy that is especially concerned with improving the long-term future.
This is because strictly speaking, the above statement seems to be an explicit definition (it clarifies the meaning of the term ‘longtermism’) that is very unspecific and broad.
On the other hand, it seems that the philosophies and movements discussed above which take the no definition approach don’t have an explicit, generally agreed-upon definition at all (or at least I take it that you’re implying that). Thus, it seems that you also use the phrase “the no definition approach” to cover 2).
It may be a bit confusing to use the phrase “the no definition approach” to express 1), since strictly speaking in those cases one does use an explicit definition. (However, maybe that phrase is sometimes used that way; I wouldn’t know.) Also, you argue against the no definition approach with the following argument.
When I look at other -isms, there is often a lot of confusion around what the concept denotes, and this hinders those who want to encourage others to take action in line with the -ism.
As I understand the argument, it’s saying that other movements and philosophies have experienced problems because they haven’t had an explicit definition at all. If so that doesn’t seem to be a good argument against having a very unspecific and broad explicit definition.
One possibility is to reserve the phrase “the no definition approach” for 2), whereas 1) could be called something else, e.g. “the ultraminimal definition approach”. Then the argument could be something like this:
“One approach is the no definition approach. This leads to confusion as we’ve seen in other movements, etc.
Another approach is to use an ultraminimal definition. However, this is too permissive, and there is a risk that ‘longtermism’ would end up referring to strong longtermism, or even to very strong longtermism .
Hence we need a less permissive definition; a minimal definition.”
(Obviously different terms could be used.)
Thus the arguments used above could still be used, but one would split the “no definition approach” into two different approaches, and use one of the two old arguments against each of the two new approaches.
With regards to the phrase “the no definition approach”, it seems to me that one should distinguish between the following two concepts:
1) Having an explicit, generally agreed-upon definition, but that being very unspecific and broad.
2) Having no explicit, generally agreed-upon definition at all.
In the below passage, the phrase “the no definition approach” seems to be used to express 1):
This is because strictly speaking, the above statement seems to be an explicit definition (it clarifies the meaning of the term ‘longtermism’) that is very unspecific and broad.
On the other hand, it seems that the philosophies and movements discussed above which take the no definition approach don’t have an explicit, generally agreed-upon definition at all (or at least I take it that you’re implying that). Thus, it seems that you also use the phrase “the no definition approach” to cover 2).
It may be a bit confusing to use the phrase “the no definition approach” to express 1), since strictly speaking in those cases one does use an explicit definition. (However, maybe that phrase is sometimes used that way; I wouldn’t know.) Also, you argue against the no definition approach with the following argument.
As I understand the argument, it’s saying that other movements and philosophies have experienced problems because they haven’t had an explicit definition at all. If so that doesn’t seem to be a good argument against having a very unspecific and broad explicit definition.
One possibility is to reserve the phrase “the no definition approach” for 2), whereas 1) could be called something else, e.g. “the ultraminimal definition approach”. Then the argument could be something like this:
“One approach is the no definition approach. This leads to confusion as we’ve seen in other movements, etc.
Another approach is to use an ultraminimal definition. However, this is too permissive, and there is a risk that ‘longtermism’ would end up referring to strong longtermism, or even to very strong longtermism .
Hence we need a less permissive definition; a minimal definition.”
(Obviously different terms could be used.)
Thus the arguments used above could still be used, but one would split the “no definition approach” into two different approaches, and use one of the two old arguments against each of the two new approaches.