Can't wait for the book and the series! By the way, would your book/series be approaching it from a Beneficentrist angle or a more full-blooded Utilitarian angle?
Also: how do you distinguish between the weak/minimal Beneficentrist claim from the Rossian prima facie duty (or pro tanto reason) of Beneficence? Seems to me they are practical…
Can't wait for the book and the series! By the way, would your book/series be approaching it from a Beneficentrist angle or a more full-blooded Utilitarian angle?
Also: how do you distinguish between the weak/minimal Beneficentrist claim from the Rossian prima facie duty (or pro tanto reason) of Beneficence? Seems to me they are practically equivalent.
Also: taking the minimal Beneficentrist/Rossian claim, plus the empirical claim that there are large/enormous numbers of global poor/future generations, plus an aggregative view of how reasons (and their weights) add up together, it seems to me that one arrives at a stronger Beneficentrism strong enough to support Effective Altruism and Longtermism, yeah? Or am I utterly misguided by the whole thing?
I mostly wrote this one from an ecumenical beneficentric perspective, though there are a couple of spots - especially in my responses to the responses - where some full-blooded utilitarian arguments shine through :-)
I basically take the message of beneficentrism to be: "give due weight to Rossian-style reasons of beneficence - they matter a lot!" So yeah, I wouldn't necessarily suggest that one needs to *distinguish* these. It's fine for them to coincide!
I agree with your last paragraph (and offer a similar style of argument for longtermism in my starter essay on that topic).
Can't wait for the book and the series! By the way, would your book/series be approaching it from a Beneficentrist angle or a more full-blooded Utilitarian angle?
Also: how do you distinguish between the weak/minimal Beneficentrist claim from the Rossian prima facie duty (or pro tanto reason) of Beneficence? Seems to me they are practically equivalent.
Also: taking the minimal Beneficentrist/Rossian claim, plus the empirical claim that there are large/enormous numbers of global poor/future generations, plus an aggregative view of how reasons (and their weights) add up together, it seems to me that one arrives at a stronger Beneficentrism strong enough to support Effective Altruism and Longtermism, yeah? Or am I utterly misguided by the whole thing?
I mostly wrote this one from an ecumenical beneficentric perspective, though there are a couple of spots - especially in my responses to the responses - where some full-blooded utilitarian arguments shine through :-)
I basically take the message of beneficentrism to be: "give due weight to Rossian-style reasons of beneficence - they matter a lot!" So yeah, I wouldn't necessarily suggest that one needs to *distinguish* these. It's fine for them to coincide!
I agree with your last paragraph (and offer a similar style of argument for longtermism in my starter essay on that topic).