On 10/20/2011 11:12 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/20/2011 7:20 PM, nihil0 wrote:
I think most consequentialists, especially utilitarians, consider all
sentient beings to have moral status.
But *equal* moral status? I cannot believe anyone has ever even
attempted to live by such an ethic.
On 20 Oct 2011, at 20:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/20/2011 11:23 AM, nihil0 wrote:
Hi,
Here is the abstract of Bostrom's Infinitarian Challenge to
Aggregative Ethics
Aggregative consequentialism and several other popular moral theories
are threatened with paralysis: when coupled with some
On 10/21/2011 8:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Oct 2011, at 20:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/20/2011 11:23 AM, nihil0 wrote:
Hi,
Here is the abstract of Bostrom's Infinitarian Challenge to
Aggregative Ethics
Aggregative consequentialism and several other popular moral theories
are
Hi,
Here is the abstract of Bostrom's Infinitarian Challenge to
Aggregative Ethics
Aggregative consequentialism and several other popular moral theories
are threatened with paralysis: when coupled with some plausible
assumptions, they seem to imply that it is always ethically
indifferent what
On 10/20/2011 11:23 AM, nihil0 wrote:
Hi,
Here is the abstract of Bostrom's Infinitarian Challenge to
Aggregative Ethics
Aggregative consequentialism and several other popular moral theories
are threatened with paralysis: when coupled with some plausible
assumptions, they seem to imply that it
What about the idea that the choices you make are likely to reflect those of
an infinite number of similar individuals? It's sort of like the issue of
voting or trying to minimize your energy usage to help the environment, even
if your individual choice makes very little difference, if everyone
Thanks for your response. Bostrom considers just the idea you mention
in section 4.6 called Class Action. He uses the term YOU to
represent all your qualitatively identical duplicates throughout the
(Level 1) multiverse. According to the class action selection rule,
Even though your actions may
Thanks for your response. Bostrom considers the idea you mention
in section 4.6 called Class Action. He uses the term YOU to
represent all your qualitatively identical duplicates throughout the
(Level 1) multiverse. According to the class action selection rule,
Even though your actions may have
On 10/20/2011 6:37 PM, nihil0 wrote:
However, this class action argument assumes that the value-density
approach is an acceptable way to measure the value in a world. There
are a few problems with the value-density approach. First of all, it
seems to give up aggregationism (total
I think most consequentialists, especially utilitarians, consider all
sentient beings to have moral status. Utilitarians say an action is
morally better to the extent that it produces more well-being in the
world.
Anyway I would prefer to focus on whether act consequentialism implies
that all
On 10/20/2011 7:20 PM, nihil0 wrote:
I think most consequentialists, especially utilitarians, consider all
sentient beings to have moral status.
But *equal* moral status? I cannot believe anyone has ever even attempted to live by such
an ethic.
Utilitarians say an action is
morally better
11 matches
Mail list logo
