It probably doesn't make a great deal of difference whether one gives "literally zero" or just "very little" weight to simplicity relative to intrinsic plausibility. The main point I wanted to convey was that it's a mistake for people to assume that utilitarians must be *prioritizing* simplicity over substantive plausibility, as I certai…
It probably doesn't make a great deal of difference whether one gives "literally zero" or just "very little" weight to simplicity relative to intrinsic plausibility. The main point I wanted to convey was that it's a mistake for people to assume that utilitarians must be *prioritizing* simplicity over substantive plausibility, as I certainly don't feel the slightest inclination to do *that*.
I agree that one shouldn't posit extra things for absolutely no reason. I'd be more inclined to say that this is because the extra posit lacks plausibility. If that counts as "simplicity repackaged" then perhaps I'm on board with some simplicity considerations after all. But I'm disposed to give lexical priority to considerations of plausibility when the two come into conflict. I don't particularly feel any impulse to prefer a shorter list of objective goods, for example; I'd simply want to characterize all and only the things that strike me, upon reflection, as seeming objectively good (without any particular concern for what the number of such goods turns out to be).
It probably doesn't make a great deal of difference whether one gives "literally zero" or just "very little" weight to simplicity relative to intrinsic plausibility. The main point I wanted to convey was that it's a mistake for people to assume that utilitarians must be *prioritizing* simplicity over substantive plausibility, as I certainly don't feel the slightest inclination to do *that*.
I agree that one shouldn't posit extra things for absolutely no reason. I'd be more inclined to say that this is because the extra posit lacks plausibility. If that counts as "simplicity repackaged" then perhaps I'm on board with some simplicity considerations after all. But I'm disposed to give lexical priority to considerations of plausibility when the two come into conflict. I don't particularly feel any impulse to prefer a shorter list of objective goods, for example; I'd simply want to characterize all and only the things that strike me, upon reflection, as seeming objectively good (without any particular concern for what the number of such goods turns out to be).