I think so! The OP categorized prudent utilitarianism as a form of multi-level utilitarianism. But it may depend on exactly what you mean by that, since the boundaries of these terms are not always precisely defined. (Some use 'sophisticated utilitarianism' to mean any non-naive view, whereas in the OP I reference Railton's view which i…
I think so! The OP categorized prudent utilitarianism as a form of multi-level utilitarianism. But it may depend on exactly what you mean by that, since the boundaries of these terms are not always precisely defined. (Some use 'sophisticated utilitarianism' to mean any non-naive view, whereas in the OP I reference Railton's view which is much more specific, and differs in significant ways from the view I defend here.)
Are you thinking there are important respects in which R.M. Hare's view diverges from what I've set out here? (There could well be! Though I also think there are important similarities.)
I didn't mean anything precise. I just noticed that, when I was reading through the old philosophyetc archives, you often mentioned multi-level utilitarianism, but now you rarely seem to, so I was curious as to the reason for that.
For this particular post, I think 'prudent' makes for more accessible terminology than 'multi-level' (and makes clearer that the alternative view is an outright mistake/misunderstanding, as opposed to a legit variant view).
As to why more of my recent posts don't discuss practical-level decision procedures at all: probably just that my blogging tends to reflect my research interests, and I have (I think) more original stuff to say about the deeper theoretical issues. But I do try to remember to flag (for casual readers) that the theoretical rejection of constraints, for example, doesn't mean they can be blithely neglected in practice.
I think so! The OP categorized prudent utilitarianism as a form of multi-level utilitarianism. But it may depend on exactly what you mean by that, since the boundaries of these terms are not always precisely defined. (Some use 'sophisticated utilitarianism' to mean any non-naive view, whereas in the OP I reference Railton's view which is much more specific, and differs in significant ways from the view I defend here.)
Are you thinking there are important respects in which R.M. Hare's view diverges from what I've set out here? (There could well be! Though I also think there are important similarities.)
I didn't mean anything precise. I just noticed that, when I was reading through the old philosophyetc archives, you often mentioned multi-level utilitarianism, but now you rarely seem to, so I was curious as to the reason for that.
For this particular post, I think 'prudent' makes for more accessible terminology than 'multi-level' (and makes clearer that the alternative view is an outright mistake/misunderstanding, as opposed to a legit variant view).
As to why more of my recent posts don't discuss practical-level decision procedures at all: probably just that my blogging tends to reflect my research interests, and I have (I think) more original stuff to say about the deeper theoretical issues. But I do try to remember to flag (for casual readers) that the theoretical rejection of constraints, for example, doesn't mean they can be blithely neglected in practice.