We just have our own values. There isn’t some magic god thingie in the sky telling us what we should value. There also isn’t some sort logical basis that describes the one true morality. Morality only exists as a matter of conscious beings, their thoughts, and their feelings.
So really: I do not care in the slightest if you can come up with a great argument for human extinction.
If that is what the greatest good is, I will try to kill and destroy those who pursue the ‘greatest good’. I value my family, I value my own life. I value the existence of beings like me extended as far and as widely as I possibly can, and I will try to fight anyone who does anything that might endanger that—and trying to even contemplate this question strikes me as the sort of thing that falls so far out of my Overton window, that the only excuse for not censoring it is that censorship doesn’t work.
“I value the existence of beings like me extended as far and as widely as I possibly can, and I will try to fight anyone who does anything that might endanger that”
That’s more or less what Putinists often say, you know. That’s what they justify unspeakable evils with :) That’s why they think all the West is evil, and should be fought against by any means necessary, because you are death, and they’re the protectors of life and humanity :)
Except, they tend to be moral realists, of course. But doubt this distinction matters as much in this righteous warrior mentality context :)
That an attitude is similar to Putin’s attitude is not an argument for it being wrong—I suppose it is an sort of decent argument for it being dangerous.
I mean Putin is obviously right (to any consistent consequentialist) that there are things worth killing, destroying, wrecking, and even torturing to protect. My disagreement with him is about either what those things are, and whether this violence actually achieves them.
I find the criticism of long-termism that it can potentially motivate horrifying behavior very compelling. I just don’t think the critics are offering an alternative way to act in cases where the stakes are really that high. Though I agree with the epistemic criticism that, a) when you think the stakes are that high, you are particularly likely to be wrong about something, and b) you are also particularly likely to be focusing on a bad set of methods for achieving your goals.
More Putinists’ than Putin’s, I’d suppose. I’m very doubtful he believes all that BS himself. Just to highlight that little distinction.
Yes, it is very, very dangerous, and all this readiness for killing, destroying, wrecking, and even torturing is in the name of those who don’t need to and will never need to be brought into existence.
This’s not even Omelas, this’s orders of magnitude worse.
We just have our own values. There isn’t some magic god thingie in the sky telling us what we should value. There also isn’t some sort logical basis that describes the one true morality. Morality only exists as a matter of conscious beings, their thoughts, and their feelings.
So really: I do not care in the slightest if you can come up with a great argument for human extinction.
If that is what the greatest good is, I will try to kill and destroy those who pursue the ‘greatest good’. I value my family, I value my own life. I value the existence of beings like me extended as far and as widely as I possibly can, and I will try to fight anyone who does anything that might endanger that—and trying to even contemplate this question strikes me as the sort of thing that falls so far out of my Overton window, that the only excuse for not censoring it is that censorship doesn’t work.
“I value the existence of beings like me extended as far and as widely as I possibly can, and I will try to fight anyone who does anything that might endanger that”
That’s more or less what Putinists often say, you know. That’s what they justify unspeakable evils with :) That’s why they think all the West is evil, and should be fought against by any means necessary, because you are death, and they’re the protectors of life and humanity :)
Except, they tend to be moral realists, of course. But doubt this distinction matters as much in this righteous warrior mentality context :)
Shrug, and Hitler was a vegetarian.
That an attitude is similar to Putin’s attitude is not an argument for it being wrong—I suppose it is an sort of decent argument for it being dangerous.
I mean Putin is obviously right (to any consistent consequentialist) that there are things worth killing, destroying, wrecking, and even torturing to protect. My disagreement with him is about either what those things are, and whether this violence actually achieves them.
I find the criticism of long-termism that it can potentially motivate horrifying behavior very compelling. I just don’t think the critics are offering an alternative way to act in cases where the stakes are really that high. Though I agree with the epistemic criticism that, a) when you think the stakes are that high, you are particularly likely to be wrong about something, and b) you are also particularly likely to be focusing on a bad set of methods for achieving your goals.
More Putinists’ than Putin’s, I’d suppose. I’m very doubtful he believes all that BS himself. Just to highlight that little distinction.
Yes, it is very, very dangerous, and all this readiness for killing, destroying, wrecking, and even torturing is in the name of those who don’t need to and will never need to be brought into existence.
This’s not even Omelas, this’s orders of magnitude worse.