Wow, I think that's the first time I've heard someone count it as a "disadvantage" of a moral view that it requires us to take into account the interests of helpless infants, the severely disabled, and other "non-reciprocators". (FWIW, I take the exclusive focus on reciprocation to be a decisive objection to contractarian accounts of morality!)
Indeed, I don't think you need morality at all to derive the principle "help people who can reciprocate" because that follows purely from self-interest. Almost by definition, morality has to mean something beyond "help people who can reciprocate" (unless you're an egoist).
I'm not arguing that utilitarianism is good *for us*. I'm arguing that it's *good*, simpliciter. I reject hedonism because I don't think it's the correct account what's good.
I think you're missing the "altruism" part of "Effective Altruism". The point is to help people, including, e.g., those who would otherwise die of malaria. If you don't see any value in that, then yes, let's leave the conversation there.
Wow, I think that's the first time I've heard someone count it as a "disadvantage" of a moral view that it requires us to take into account the interests of helpless infants, the severely disabled, and other "non-reciprocators". (FWIW, I take the exclusive focus on reciprocation to be a decisive objection to contractarian accounts of morality!)
I think hedonism is false, and think moral uncertainty should suffice to make even hedonists wary of hedonium-shockwave futures that score disastrously on other reasonable theories of value. See: https://rychappell.substack.com/p/the-nietzschean-challenge-to-effective#conclusion
Indeed, I don't think you need morality at all to derive the principle "help people who can reciprocate" because that follows purely from self-interest. Almost by definition, morality has to mean something beyond "help people who can reciprocate" (unless you're an egoist).
I'm not arguing that utilitarianism is good *for us*. I'm arguing that it's *good*, simpliciter. I reject hedonism because I don't think it's the correct account what's good.
I think you're missing the "altruism" part of "Effective Altruism". The point is to help people, including, e.g., those who would otherwise die of malaria. If you don't see any value in that, then yes, let's leave the conversation there.