I’m not sure I follow Timmerman’s thought experiment, but his conclusion seems to be that everyone is indeed morally obliged to live up to Singer’s maximisation principle as best they can, while recognising that they fall short of perfection. They may allow themselves such things as coffee and sleep, but only to the extent that they would otherwise be less productive of good. These things are a cost paid in order to maximise one’s effectiveness, not any sort of turning away from that obligation. Food, sleep, R&R: these are permitted only as a preparation for more good works. The less of these things one needs the better a person one is, and there is continually the obligation to ask oneself, could I be doing even more for others with even less for myself?
A marathon runner aiming to make the best time cannot simply run flat out, but must make careful use of their physical resources throughout the race, while never slacking off for even one second. Just so, everyone is obliged to do the most good for others that they can, which includes managing their own well-being in order to make their lives as effective to that end as possible. Rest is a preparation for work. Sleep is a preparation for work. Food is a preparation for work. Everything is either work, or a preparation for work. The work is not a sprint, nor a marathon, but is for the whole of your life. Doing good isn’t everything, it’s the only thing, and always remember that while you’re sleeping, people are suffering.
I decline to board that train of thought, because I know where it ends.
Myself and others have become compelled to adopt a ‘maximising ethics’ by which to live.
What compels you? You read some words in a book and suddenly they take over your head?
I guess you could interpret Timmerman as consistent with Singer, but I personally think that he is trying to provide justification for behaviour that it entirely self-regarding and to the extent that it is superfluous to what is required for maximal output.
Assuming that your “2: Yes” is in response to my question about a book taking over your head, are you satisfied with that result, and with the process by which it happened? A while back I recast my stark presentation of EA totalism as a collection of 1000 (and growing) Insanity Wolf memes. I wrote that page with the intention of being anti-persuasive of the thesis, but how do they come across to you?
I’m not sure I follow Timmerman’s thought experiment, but his conclusion seems to be that everyone is indeed morally obliged to live up to Singer’s maximisation principle as best they can, while recognising that they fall short of perfection. They may allow themselves such things as coffee and sleep, but only to the extent that they would otherwise be less productive of good. These things are a cost paid in order to maximise one’s effectiveness, not any sort of turning away from that obligation. Food, sleep, R&R: these are permitted only as a preparation for more good works. The less of these things one needs the better a person one is, and there is continually the obligation to ask oneself, could I be doing even more for others with even less for myself?
A marathon runner aiming to make the best time cannot simply run flat out, but must make careful use of their physical resources throughout the race, while never slacking off for even one second. Just so, everyone is obliged to do the most good for others that they can, which includes managing their own well-being in order to make their lives as effective to that end as possible. Rest is a preparation for work. Sleep is a preparation for work. Food is a preparation for work. Everything is either work, or a preparation for work. The work is not a sprint, nor a marathon, but is for the whole of your life. Doing good isn’t everything, it’s the only thing, and always remember that while you’re sleeping, people are suffering.
I decline to board that train of thought, because I know where it ends.
What compels you? You read some words in a book and suddenly they take over your head?
I guess you could interpret Timmerman as consistent with Singer, but I personally think that he is trying to provide justification for behaviour that it entirely self-regarding and to the extent that it is superfluous to what is required for maximal output.
Yes
Assuming that your “2: Yes” is in response to my question about a book taking over your head, are you satisfied with that result, and with the process by which it happened? A while back I recast my stark presentation of EA totalism as a collection of 1000 (and growing) Insanity Wolf memes. I wrote that page with the intention of being anti-persuasive of the thesis, but how do they come across to you?