Your work -- mainly your Substack writing, but also to a lesser degree your old blog, though I didn't follow it that closely or for that long -- has made me view consequentialism in a significantly more positive light. At least that's been a trend for me the past couple of years, and though it's hard to pinpoint the causality, I'm pretty sure your posts here on consequentialism, utilitarianism, beneficentrism, and also ethical theory generally (like Puzzles for Everyone and Ethics as Solutions vs Constraints) have played a pretty large role. Granted, they haven't changed my actual behaviour that much (not yet, anyway) as I was already pretty convinced by effective altruism before largely changing my mind on consequentialism.
I'm considering renewing my (tiny, definitely NOT even single life saving) donation to GW, and I'm planning to use your content in defense of consequentialism, if such an occasion arises, during an introductory moral philosophy class next semester (I became a student of humantities in my dotage) led by a tutor who, as far as I can ascertain, leans virtue ethics / existentialist.
I don't focus on ethics in my work, because I've always thought I pretty much sucked at it. I had always thought utilitarianism was a lot better than the vast majority of philosophers thought. It seemed to me that the standard objections to it really weren't too hot. Reading your blog posts over the years was helpful in making me realize I wasn't the only one!
Another, related, thought is that philosophy as a profession has made a simply enormous mistake by not partnering, in mass, with the rich Silicon Valley types who think EA is cool and insightful. Sure, some of those people might be greedy or whatever--just like everyone else who isn't a freakin' saint. Who cares? We philosophers could have made a great impact there via those people, and yet for the most part we didn't. Same for all the rich or powerful people who are into Stoicism. A few philosophers worked with those people but not nearly as many as could have.
Those are two opportunities we haven't taken advantage of in nearly the way we could have, and as a result philosophy has lost two chances at making a real difference.
I think your blogging has influenced me in the following ways:
1. I've become much more sympathetic to Utilitarianism. Prior to regularly reading your blog I probably would have leaned toward some form of Ethical Pluralism. I also thought certain objections to Utilitarianism while not quite decisive, were pretty close. I no longer think that. I now think some form of Consequentialism is likely true and am much more sympathetic to Utilitarianism. And I've found the responses you give to the Individual Rights Objection and Demandingness concern pretty convincing. I don't know how much this has influenced me practically. I was strongly in the EA / Strong beneficence camp prior to regularly reading your work. But I suspect that there is some positive influence that regularly reading your work has in terms of pushing me to live more closely in line with the views I actually hold (increasing my giving, taking the Giving What We Can pledge, focusing on more important projects, etc).
2. Your posts and essays on Deontic Pluralism have basically convinced me that I was previously thinking about the concept of 'right' incorrectly. They've also dissolved a sort of puzzle I previously felt about the demandingness of morality and how much I ought to give.
3. I now use Utilitarianism.net when I teach Utilitarianism in my Intro to Ethics class, and I frequently include your post "Confessions of a Cheeseburger Ethicist" as a reading when I cover the ethics of factory farming and arguments for veganism. I use your essay on Pandemic Ethics when teaching Bioethics.
Your work -- mainly your Substack writing, but also to a lesser degree your old blog, though I didn't follow it that closely or for that long -- has made me view consequentialism in a significantly more positive light. At least that's been a trend for me the past couple of years, and though it's hard to pinpoint the causality, I'm pretty sure your posts here on consequentialism, utilitarianism, beneficentrism, and also ethical theory generally (like Puzzles for Everyone and Ethics as Solutions vs Constraints) have played a pretty large role. Granted, they haven't changed my actual behaviour that much (not yet, anyway) as I was already pretty convinced by effective altruism before largely changing my mind on consequentialism.
Thanks, that's encouraging to hear!
I'm considering renewing my (tiny, definitely NOT even single life saving) donation to GW, and I'm planning to use your content in defense of consequentialism, if such an occasion arises, during an introductory moral philosophy class next semester (I became a student of humantities in my dotage) led by a tutor who, as far as I can ascertain, leans virtue ethics / existentialist.
I don't focus on ethics in my work, because I've always thought I pretty much sucked at it. I had always thought utilitarianism was a lot better than the vast majority of philosophers thought. It seemed to me that the standard objections to it really weren't too hot. Reading your blog posts over the years was helpful in making me realize I wasn't the only one!
Another, related, thought is that philosophy as a profession has made a simply enormous mistake by not partnering, in mass, with the rich Silicon Valley types who think EA is cool and insightful. Sure, some of those people might be greedy or whatever--just like everyone else who isn't a freakin' saint. Who cares? We philosophers could have made a great impact there via those people, and yet for the most part we didn't. Same for all the rich or powerful people who are into Stoicism. A few philosophers worked with those people but not nearly as many as could have.
Those are two opportunities we haven't taken advantage of in nearly the way we could have, and as a result philosophy has lost two chances at making a real difference.
I think your blogging has influenced me in the following ways:
1. I've become much more sympathetic to Utilitarianism. Prior to regularly reading your blog I probably would have leaned toward some form of Ethical Pluralism. I also thought certain objections to Utilitarianism while not quite decisive, were pretty close. I no longer think that. I now think some form of Consequentialism is likely true and am much more sympathetic to Utilitarianism. And I've found the responses you give to the Individual Rights Objection and Demandingness concern pretty convincing. I don't know how much this has influenced me practically. I was strongly in the EA / Strong beneficence camp prior to regularly reading your work. But I suspect that there is some positive influence that regularly reading your work has in terms of pushing me to live more closely in line with the views I actually hold (increasing my giving, taking the Giving What We Can pledge, focusing on more important projects, etc).
2. Your posts and essays on Deontic Pluralism have basically convinced me that I was previously thinking about the concept of 'right' incorrectly. They've also dissolved a sort of puzzle I previously felt about the demandingness of morality and how much I ought to give.
3. I now use Utilitarianism.net when I teach Utilitarianism in my Intro to Ethics class, and I frequently include your post "Confessions of a Cheeseburger Ethicist" as a reading when I cover the ethics of factory farming and arguments for veganism. I use your essay on Pandemic Ethics when teaching Bioethics.
Thanks, that's great to hear!