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.
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 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.