> "I see no philosophical problem with that horrorlessness."
Sure, as I mentioned in the footnote, I see it as akin to denying that wild animal suffering matters. Someone could consistently hold such a view, and in that sense see "no philosophical problem" with it. But it strikes me as (very) morally bad, and I hope my thought experiments can help at least *some* readers to see why. (In general, vividly imagining & focusing on an excluded interest seems like the best hope for helping someone to see why it's morally problematic to neglect that interest.) If you don't share my core intuition, there's probably not much more to discuss here: we've reached argumentative bedrock.
You explained why you disagree; that's fine, but is not the same as "demonstrating problems". The latter would require presenting reasons that anyone ought to recognize as *good* reasons. I think you're rejecting my arguments for bad reasons. (You disagree. Again, that's fine.)
> "Here is a case where I think your view is intuitively mistaken and (very) morally bad..."
No, that's clearly a bad argument. You can substitute *any* moderate benefit (e.g. feeding hungry mice) and it will seem intuitively wrong for the medical team to ignore the urgent needs of the burn victim merely in order to bring about a bunch more of the other good (making mice happy). You *obviously* can't conclude from this that there is nothing good about moderate benefits (whether to hungry mice, or to future people who would otherwise not get to exist).
> "To my mind your view is on untested ground, not known bedrock."
That's an odd claim. You're not really in any position to know how thoroughly my views here have been tested (by prior reflection). My judgment of the dialectic remains that neither of us is likely to convince the other.
I'm pointing to (suspected) underlying "bedrock disagreements" as explanation for why I'm not inclined to invest more time into this discussion. Obviously I haven't *in this discussion* explained all of my views, why I'm unconvinced by your responses and objections, and everything else that I think is wrong with what you've written. That would take a lot of time, and I'm skeptical that it would achieve anything.
My arguments are intended for receptive audiences: the film reel case, for example, might help some to see things more as I do (even when they previously hadn't thought so). But if it doesn't work for you, then it's not for you. Premises may always be rejected; no argument can persuade everyone.
Again, you're under the misapprehension that *what you've read here* is the full extent of my thoughts on the topic. It isn't. Your objections aren't new to me, and I'm under no obligation to go through the motions of a tedious discussion with you just because you (seemingly) want it. Your assumption that this makes me a "fanatic", or indeed that there's *anything* "dishonest" about this, is ludicrous.
I'm going to give you a temporary ban so you can cool off and reflect. Please don't comment on my blog again until you understand (i) that you're not *entitled* to my time, and (ii) that you can't see inside my head, and so you actually have no idea what I've already considered at length. If you repeat these mistakes again in future, the ban will be made permanent.
> "I see no philosophical problem with that horrorlessness."
Sure, as I mentioned in the footnote, I see it as akin to denying that wild animal suffering matters. Someone could consistently hold such a view, and in that sense see "no philosophical problem" with it. But it strikes me as (very) morally bad, and I hope my thought experiments can help at least *some* readers to see why. (In general, vividly imagining & focusing on an excluded interest seems like the best hope for helping someone to see why it's morally problematic to neglect that interest.) If you don't share my core intuition, there's probably not much more to discuss here: we've reached argumentative bedrock.
You explained why you disagree; that's fine, but is not the same as "demonstrating problems". The latter would require presenting reasons that anyone ought to recognize as *good* reasons. I think you're rejecting my arguments for bad reasons. (You disagree. Again, that's fine.)
> "Here is a case where I think your view is intuitively mistaken and (very) morally bad..."
No, that's clearly a bad argument. You can substitute *any* moderate benefit (e.g. feeding hungry mice) and it will seem intuitively wrong for the medical team to ignore the urgent needs of the burn victim merely in order to bring about a bunch more of the other good (making mice happy). You *obviously* can't conclude from this that there is nothing good about moderate benefits (whether to hungry mice, or to future people who would otherwise not get to exist).
> "To my mind your view is on untested ground, not known bedrock."
That's an odd claim. You're not really in any position to know how thoroughly my views here have been tested (by prior reflection). My judgment of the dialectic remains that neither of us is likely to convince the other.
I'm pointing to (suspected) underlying "bedrock disagreements" as explanation for why I'm not inclined to invest more time into this discussion. Obviously I haven't *in this discussion* explained all of my views, why I'm unconvinced by your responses and objections, and everything else that I think is wrong with what you've written. That would take a lot of time, and I'm skeptical that it would achieve anything.
My arguments are intended for receptive audiences: the film reel case, for example, might help some to see things more as I do (even when they previously hadn't thought so). But if it doesn't work for you, then it's not for you. Premises may always be rejected; no argument can persuade everyone.
Again, you're under the misapprehension that *what you've read here* is the full extent of my thoughts on the topic. It isn't. Your objections aren't new to me, and I'm under no obligation to go through the motions of a tedious discussion with you just because you (seemingly) want it. Your assumption that this makes me a "fanatic", or indeed that there's *anything* "dishonest" about this, is ludicrous.
I'm going to give you a temporary ban so you can cool off and reflect. Please don't comment on my blog again until you understand (i) that you're not *entitled* to my time, and (ii) that you can't see inside my head, and so you actually have no idea what I've already considered at length. If you repeat these mistakes again in future, the ban will be made permanent.