I agree! There seems to be a utility monster problem when weighing Longtermist stuff against moral good that has no compounding value. This is why I added the line about not being sure whether this should be weighed as a criticism against Longtermism or against veganism.
It sounds like you didn’t understand Derek’s comment. With his points in mind your response sounds like:
I agree! There seems to be a utility monster problem when weighing short-term chicken welfare against moral good that has no compounding value. This is why I added the line about not being sure whether this should be weighed as a criticism of caring about short-term chicken welfare or against stopping keying strangers’ cars even if it helps you relax.
It seems to me like your argument proves too much, and Derek’s comment helps reveal that, but it doesn’t seem like this comment of yours acknowledges that despite the initial “I agree”.
I’m with both of you in my discomfort, though I’m not sure I would consider this a reason to be suspicious of ” longtermism” so much as “bullet-biting deontic strong longtermism”, but I think there are lots of very counter intuitive implications of the latter anyway.
I agree! There seems to be a utility monster problem when weighing Longtermist stuff against moral good that has no compounding value. This is why I added the line about not being sure whether this should be weighed as a criticism against Longtermism or against veganism.
It sounds like you didn’t understand Derek’s comment. With his points in mind your response sounds like:
It seems to me like your argument proves too much, and Derek’s comment helps reveal that, but it doesn’t seem like this comment of yours acknowledges that despite the initial “I agree”.
I’m with both of you in my discomfort, though I’m not sure I would consider this a reason to be suspicious of ” longtermism” so much as “bullet-biting deontic strong longtermism”, but I think there are lots of very counter intuitive implications of the latter anyway.