Yeah, I flagged some related issues with the 'capped' view in my 'double or nothing' post: https://rychappell.substack.com/p/double-or-nothing-existence-gambles
I think the "act as if you were to sequentially live everyone's life" heuristic implicitly assumes a simple aggregative (total) view. But one who rejects this axiology could none…
I think the "act as if you were to sequentially live everyone's life" heuristic implicitly assumes a simple aggregative (total) view. But one who rejects this axiology could nonetheless build it into an "as if" clause for the sake of the heuristic. I don't have any independent intuition that the boundaries between people don't matter. Quite the opposite: it seems obvious that we've distinctive reasons to regret uncompensated harms (e.g. to the child in Omelas) that we wouldn't have if it was just a passing harm to one stage of a super-person that was more than compensated by larger benefits to other stages.
Yeah, I flagged some related issues with the 'capped' view in my 'double or nothing' post: https://rychappell.substack.com/p/double-or-nothing-existence-gambles
I think the "act as if you were to sequentially live everyone's life" heuristic implicitly assumes a simple aggregative (total) view. But one who rejects this axiology could nonetheless build it into an "as if" clause for the sake of the heuristic. I don't have any independent intuition that the boundaries between people don't matter. Quite the opposite: it seems obvious that we've distinctive reasons to regret uncompensated harms (e.g. to the child in Omelas) that we wouldn't have if it was just a passing harm to one stage of a super-person that was more than compensated by larger benefits to other stages.