= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Man, reality is so much less interesting than my magical kingdom of loyal steelmen.
I would push the fat man in front of the trolley too in the thought experiment, and so would many rights based libertarians. They just don't do it in real life. I don't think they think rights are any more real than utilities are. They think it is a better form of government, to hold that people have inviolable rights even when there are compelling arguments in favor of violating those rights.
But more importantly, why are you being smug about this? Some people value being able to own firearms even at a steep cost to others. Some people, like communists, value economic equality across the population. It is not privileging the question if they value something more than you do. In fact, if that is the case, we should frown upon customized news feeds in general.
Am I justified in asking why you bought an iPhone when you could have saved a starving child with that money, and whether you think getting an iPhone for yourself is more valuable than saving a dying kid? If not, you're a hypocrite. If yes, that too tells something about you.
Yes. This is a question I thought about before buying an iPhone and I think it deserves a serious answer, which in short is that iPhones can be used as incredible productivity tools, that I intended to use my iPhone that way (and have, by and large), and that I would pass on those productivity gains eventually (e.g. in increased earning potential which eventually finds its way to effective charities, or in being more effectively able to do work for MIRI or some other organization). Remember that consequentialism need not be nearsighted.
that I intended to use my iPhone that way (and have, by and large),
That seems like an awfully contrived reason to buy an iPhone, especially when you could do all the work you do with an iPhone using a cheaper android phone too. But suppose there is a certain unique feature that the iPhone has that others don't that makes you more productive (I'm not asking what that feature is). You are still deliberately dodging the spirit of the question. It wasn't about an iPhone. I didn't even know you had one.
So, am I justified in asking why you spend four hours per month watching Game of Thrones when you could have used that time to earn more money and use that to save a child in Africa? Do you think spending time on a couch, watching Game of Thrones, eating potatoes, is more valuable than saving a dying child in Africa?
You already have guessed what these questions would lead to. But my intention is not to accuse you of hypocrisy. What I say is that even if you watch Game of Thrones instead of saving a dying child in Africa, I wouldn't think any less of you.
Your article was Privileging the Question, not Promoting Utilitarianism. You could make your point without trying to change what people value.
Decide for whom to vote, for one thing.
Why do you think voting is valuable relative to the other things you could be doing? (Not a rhetorical question.)
Am I justified in asking why you bought an iPhone when you could have saved a starving child with that money, and whether you think getting an iPhone for yourself is more valuable than saving a dying kid? If not, you're a hypocrite. If yes, that too tells something about you.
I accept utilitarianism. But I also think we're not born with a utility function. When I vote, I value it being an informed decision. If you ask me whether I couldn't think of anything more valuable than that, I'd ask whether you couldn't think of anything more valuable to do with your money than buying a smartphone.
To be honest, I don't vote. But many do and value their right to vote.
It's entertainment, and who's to say entertainment is not important? There's no privileged value system.
But ... you just admitted they're unimportant "in purely utilitarian terms"!
What made utilitarianism the privileged value system? All I said was that if you try to make a utilitarian argument for gun control being an important issue, you'd probably fail. Someone would make a better argument for controlling diabetes being more important by comparing the number of people getting killed by illegal firearms and the number of people who die because of diabetes. (Note that the point here isn't whether controlling guns is a good thing to do, but whether it's more important than controlling diabetes).
I never said that utilitarianism is the privileged value system. What makes Casey Anthony brouhaha a privileged question is not the fact that it's entertainment and not news, but the fact that from all possible gruesome murders that could be equally as entertaining, they picked this one and follwed it day and night. That's a clear case of privileging the question. There are better questions to ask even among sensational issues.
They're not important if you're thinking about them in purely utilitarian terms, as in how many people get killed per year by illegal firearms. But they are important if you are concerned about the role of government.
I don't understand this dichotomy. What do you mean by 'purely utilitarian'? Doesn't the role of government also affect, e.g., death rates?
Perhaps your point is that they're still important, but for more complicated and indirect reasons? E.g., as schelling points or points of precedent. (You could also give, I think, a compelling argument that they're important precisely because people think they're important.)
It's entertainment, and who's to say entertainment is not important? There's no privileged value system.
There are certainly privileged value systems: the value systems people actually have. Short-term entertainment may be important, but virtuous (or at least non-destructive) conduct can be made entertaining as well.
I think most people who watch talk shows know that they are watching them for entertainment, not news.
It's more likely that they're watching them for entertaining news, or for news-enriched entertainment.
Doesn't the role of government also affect, e.g., death rates?
Of course, but the reason that rights based libertarians oppose gun control is not utilitarianism. A rights based libertarian would oppose gun control even if the utilitarian argument for it was obviously true. Such a person would not consider this question a privileged question.
But they are important if you are concerned about the role of government.
How big of a concern should this be relative to other possible concerns? (I think "what should the role of government be?" is another privileged question. What do you intend to do with an answer to this question? (I am not convinced of the value of voting.))
If I apply this principle to this author and this post, I'd wonder why take these three issues to make his point
I picked the first three things that came to my head.
I think "what should the role of government be?" is another privileged question. What do you intend to do with an answer to this question?
Decide for whom to vote, for one thing. Of course my one vote isn't important. But the vote of ten million people who watch news is significant.
I think the role of government is an important question because governments of nation states are some of the most powerful entities there are. No other entity can coerce people virtually without consequence.
In response to
Privileging the Question
Gay marriage and gun control are privileged questions? I disagree. They're not important if you're thinking about them in purely utilitarian terms, as in how many people get killed per year by illegal firearms. But they are important if you are concerned about the role of government.
Why has the media privileged these questions? I'd guess that the media is incentivized to ask whatever questions will get them the most views.
I think the more relevant question here is why do such questions get more views in the first place. I'd say the reason is they divide people along party lines. So it's more fun to ask those questions than a question like what to do in order to make charity more effective. It's entertainment, and who's to say entertainment is not important? There's no privileged value system.
I think most people who watch talk shows know that they are watching them for entertainment, not news.
ask not just whether the author is telling the truth, but why he's writing about this subject at all.
If I apply this principle to this author and this post, I'd wonder why take these three issues to make his point, instead of something clear and simple like the Casey Anthony brouhaha, which was clearly and indisputably a privileged question. Is he trying to signal something?
This is a good article.
In response to
The Least Convenient Possible World
<i>Would this be moral or not?</i>
Of course it is, if you live in this hypothetical world. The fact that in real life things are rarely this clear, or the fact that in real life you will be jailed for doing this, or the fact that you'd feel guilty if you do this, or the fact that in real life you won't have the courage to do this, doesn't mean that it's wrong.
But in real life I'd hardly ever violate the libertarian rights because of all the reasons mentioned above.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Yes, and it depends. Whatever your values are, you need to be in a position to satisfy those values. That means you need to take care of yourself so you won't go crazy or otherwise become incapable of satisfying your values in the future, and one aspect of that is giving yourself leisure time. Game of Thrones may or may not be a good way to do this.
I think you perceive this huge chasm between selfishness and selflessness that doesn't really exist. Making your life better makes other people's lives better to the extent that you put time and effort into making other people's lives better and can do that better if your life is better. Making other people's lives better makes your life better to the extent that you care about other people.
Is this really how you think it works? Do you honestly watch Game of Thrones because it helps to better other people's lives? I'd be surprised. More likely, you start with "I like Game of Thrones" and end up with "it helps me to save the world." I can't read your mind. But that'd be my guess.
The problem is, you can justify too many things with this excuse. You already justified your iPhone when you could have bought a cheap android phone that has pretty much the same features. Paying the Apple tax is perhaps not the most effective way to save the world.
P.S. Is there any research done that suggests smartphones make people more productive?