“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.
“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.