… ok, I take it back, it seems like you are reading my comments and apparently (sort of, mostly) understanding them… but then where the heck did the above-quoted totally erroneous summary of my view come from?!
I don’t have the strongest grasp of what rule consequentialism actually means. I’m also very prone to thinking about things in terms of expected value. I apologize if either of these things has lead to confusion or misattribution.
My understanding of rule consequentialism is that you choose rules that you think will lead to the best consequences and then try to follow those rules. But it is also my understanding that it is often a little difficult to figure out what rules apply to what situations, and so in practice some object level thinking about expected consequences bleeds in.
It sounds like that is not the case here though. It sounds like here you have rules you are following that clearly apply to this decision to post the tenth comment and you are not thinking about expected consequences. Is that correct? If not would you mind clarifying what is true?
Anyhow, to answer your question… uh… I already answered your question. I explain some relevant “rules” in the thread that I linked to.
I would appreciate it if you could outline 1) what the rules are and 2) why you have selected them.
So in this hypothetical calculation which you allude to, “the effects on Bob” (in the sense that we are discussing) should be weighted at exactly zero.
Hm. I’d like to clarify something here. This seems important.
It’s one thing to say that 1) “tough love” is good because despite being painful in the short term, it is what most benefits the person in the long term. But it is another thing to say 2) that if someone is “soft” then their experiences don’t matter.
This isn’t a perfect analogy, but I think that it is gesturing at something that is important and in the ballpark of what we’re talking about. I’m having trouble putting my finger on it. Do you think there is something useful here, perhaps with some amendments? Would you like to comment on where you stand on (1) vs (2)?
I’ll also try to ask a more concrete question here. Are you saying a) by taking the effects on Bob into account it will lead to less good consequences for society as a whole (ie. Bob + everyone else), and thus we shouldn’t take the effects of Bob into account? Or are you saying b), that the effects on Bob simply don’t matter at all?
It sounds like here you have rules you are following that clearly apply to this decision to post the tenth comment and you are not thinking about expected consequences. Is that correct? If not would you mind clarifying what is true?
Sure, that’s basically true. Let’s say, provisionally, that this is a reasonable description.
I would appreciate it if you could outline 1) what the rules are and 2) why you have selected them.
I’m talking about stuff like this:
I say and write things[3] because I consider those things to be true, relevant, and at least somewhat important.
Now, is that the only rule that applies to situations like this (i.e., “writing comments on a discussion forum”)? No, of course not. Many other rules apply. It’s not really reasonable to expect me to enumerate the entirety of my moral and practical views in a comment.
As for why I’ve selected the rules… it’s because I think that they’re the right ones, of course.
Like, at this point we’ve moved into “list and explain all of your opinions about morality and also about everything else”. And, man, that is definitely a “we’re gonna be here all day or possibly all year or maybe twelve years” sort of conversation.
So in this hypothetical calculation which you allude to, “the effects on Bob” (in the sense that we are discussing) should be weighted at exactly zero.
Hm. I’d like to clarify something here. This seems important.
It’s one thing to say that 1) “tough love” is good because despite being painful in the short term, it is what most benefits the person in the long term. But it is another thing to say 2) that if someone is “soft” then their experiences don’t matter.
Well, yes, those are indeed two different things. But also, neither of them are things that I’ve said, so neither of them seems relevant…?
Do you think there is something useful here, perhaps with some amendments?
I think that you’re reading things into my comments that are not the things that I wrote in those comments. I’m not sure what the source of the confusion is.
I’ll also try to ask a more concrete question here. Are you saying a) by taking the effects on Bob into account it will lead to less good consequences for society as a whole (ie. Bob + everyone else), and thus we shouldn’t take the effects of Bob into account? Or are you saying b), that the effects on Bob simply don’t matter at all?
Well, things don’t just “matter” in the abstract, they only matter to specific people. I’m sure that the effects on Bob of Bob reading my comments matter to Bob. This is fine! Indeed, it’s perfect: the effects matter to Bob, and Bob is the one who knows best what the effects are, and Bob is the one best capable of controlling the effects, so a policy of “the effects on Bob of Bob reading my comments are Bob’s to take care of” is absolutely ideal in every way.
And, yes indeed, it would be very bad for society as a whole (and relevant subsets thereof, such as “the participants in this discussion forum”) if we were to adopt the opposite policy. (Indeed, we can see that it is very bad for society, almost every time we do adopt the opposite policy.)
Like, very straightforwardly, a society that takes the position that I have described is just better than a society that takes the opposite position. That’s the rule consequentialist reasoning here.
This is starting to feel satisfying, like I understand where you are coming from. I have a relatively strong curiosity here; I want to understand where you’re coming from.
It sounds like there are rules such as “saying things that are true, relevant and at least somewhat important” that you strongly believe will lead to the best outcomes for society. These rules apply to the decision to post the tenth comment, and so you follow the rule and post the comment.
Like, very straightforwardly, a society that takes the position that I have described is just better than a society that takes the opposite position. That’s the rule consequentialist reasoning here.
So to be clear would it be accurate to say that you would choose (a) rather than (b) in my previous question? Perhaps with some amendments or caveats?
I’m trying to ask what you value.
And as for listing out your entire moral philosophy, I am certainly not asking for that. I was thinking that there might be 3-5 rules that are most relevant and that would be easy to rattle off. Is that not the case?
So to be clear would it be accurate to say that you would choose (a) rather than (b) in my previous question? Perhaps with some amendments or caveats?
Right.
I was thinking that there might be 3-5 rules that are most relevant and that would be easy to rattle off. Is that not the case?
I guess I’d have to think about it. The “rules” that are relevant to this sort of situation have always seemed to me to be both very obvious and also continuous with general principles of how to live and act, so separating them out is not easy.
I don’t have the strongest grasp of what rule consequentialism actually means. I’m also very prone to thinking about things in terms of expected value. I apologize if either of these things has lead to confusion or misattribution.
My understanding of rule consequentialism is that you choose rules that you think will lead to the best consequences and then try to follow those rules. But it is also my understanding that it is often a little difficult to figure out what rules apply to what situations, and so in practice some object level thinking about expected consequences bleeds in.
It sounds like that is not the case here though. It sounds like here you have rules you are following that clearly apply to this decision to post the tenth comment and you are not thinking about expected consequences. Is that correct? If not would you mind clarifying what is true?
I would appreciate it if you could outline 1) what the rules are and 2) why you have selected them.
Hm. I’d like to clarify something here. This seems important.
It’s one thing to say that 1) “tough love” is good because despite being painful in the short term, it is what most benefits the person in the long term. But it is another thing to say 2) that if someone is “soft” then their experiences don’t matter.
This isn’t a perfect analogy, but I think that it is gesturing at something that is important and in the ballpark of what we’re talking about. I’m having trouble putting my finger on it. Do you think there is something useful here, perhaps with some amendments? Would you like to comment on where you stand on (1) vs (2)?
I’ll also try to ask a more concrete question here. Are you saying a) by taking the effects on Bob into account it will lead to less good consequences for society as a whole (ie. Bob + everyone else), and thus we shouldn’t take the effects of Bob into account? Or are you saying b), that the effects on Bob simply don’t matter at all?
Sure, that’s basically true. Let’s say, provisionally, that this is a reasonable description.
I’m talking about stuff like this:
Now, is that the only rule that applies to situations like this (i.e., “writing comments on a discussion forum”)? No, of course not. Many other rules apply. It’s not really reasonable to expect me to enumerate the entirety of my moral and practical views in a comment.
As for why I’ve selected the rules… it’s because I think that they’re the right ones, of course.
Like, at this point we’ve moved into “list and explain all of your opinions about morality and also about everything else”. And, man, that is definitely a “we’re gonna be here all day or possibly all year or maybe twelve years” sort of conversation.
Well, yes, those are indeed two different things. But also, neither of them are things that I’ve said, so neither of them seems relevant…?
I think that you’re reading things into my comments that are not the things that I wrote in those comments. I’m not sure what the source of the confusion is.
Well, things don’t just “matter” in the abstract, they only matter to specific people. I’m sure that the effects on Bob of Bob reading my comments matter to Bob. This is fine! Indeed, it’s perfect: the effects matter to Bob, and Bob is the one who knows best what the effects are, and Bob is the one best capable of controlling the effects, so a policy of “the effects on Bob of Bob reading my comments are Bob’s to take care of” is absolutely ideal in every way.
And, yes indeed, it would be very bad for society as a whole (and relevant subsets thereof, such as “the participants in this discussion forum”) if we were to adopt the opposite policy. (Indeed, we can see that it is very bad for society, almost every time we do adopt the opposite policy.)
Like, very straightforwardly, a society that takes the position that I have described is just better than a society that takes the opposite position. That’s the rule consequentialist reasoning here.
This is starting to feel satisfying, like I understand where you are coming from. I have a relatively strong curiosity here; I want to understand where you’re coming from.
It sounds like there are rules such as “saying things that are true, relevant and at least somewhat important” that you strongly believe will lead to the best outcomes for society. These rules apply to the decision to post the tenth comment, and so you follow the rule and post the comment.
So to be clear would it be accurate to say that you would choose (a) rather than (b) in my previous question? Perhaps with some amendments or caveats?
I’m trying to ask what you value.
And as for listing out your entire moral philosophy, I am certainly not asking for that. I was thinking that there might be 3-5 rules that are most relevant and that would be easy to rattle off. Is that not the case?
Right.
I guess I’d have to think about it. The “rules” that are relevant to this sort of situation have always seemed to me to be both very obvious and also continuous with general principles of how to live and act, so separating them out is not easy.