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).