tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post3413765171404428661..comments2023-10-14T09:40:06.690-05:00Comments on Jean Kazez: The More the MerrierJean Kazezhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-30861496565523718612011-05-06T13:24:00.570-05:002011-05-06T13:24:00.570-05:00Even accepting the dubious proposition that a high...Even accepting the dubious proposition that a higher peak of individual happiness (which might perhaps be achieved in a low population world) can be outweighed by having more people in a state of relative misery does not settle the question. If one wants to play this silly game, then surely it is the total of all lives ever lived that comes into play and so, if by overbreeding now we diminish theAlan Cooperhttp://qpr.ca/blogsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-6390996457017162252011-04-26T09:34:56.772-05:002011-04-26T09:34:56.772-05:00I do not think it's settled. It looks like Sin...I do not think it's settled. It looks like Singer changed his mind too. <br /><br />From wikipedia "Singer's ideas require the concept of an impartial standpoint from which to compare interests. He has wavered about whether the precise aim is the total amount of satisfied interests or the most satisfied interests among those beings who already exist prior to the decision one is ʫɜʖʈɔɡɭʟɡɶəɡɦʟʓɬʢɡɰɬnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-41390815049544056192011-04-26T09:04:45.161-05:002011-04-26T09:04:45.161-05:00What puzzles me is that you write as if it's a...What puzzles me is that you write as if it's a settled matter which preferences count. But surely that's not so. Preference utilitarians can think that only satisfied <i>existing</i> preferences count, but also that <i>all</i> satisfied preferences count. <br /><br />In fact, in Practical Ethics 2E (pages 103-105), Singer acknowledges both possibilities. The "total view" Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297159994901018071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-59270829291852779082011-04-26T09:00:31.806-05:002011-04-26T09:00:31.806-05:00On page 303 (you can get it from the Amazon's ...On page 303 (you can get it from the Amazon's preview http://amzn.to/fEqiSU )<br /><br />he goes into more details and gives a good bibliography of problem of "total" vs "prior existance" versions of utilitarianism.ʈɻʬɑʝnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-47632793365662424632011-04-26T08:48:12.773-05:002011-04-26T08:48:12.773-05:00The drug addict example is a standard one, but I a...The drug addict example is a standard one, but I agree it is a bit misleading. Singer uses the one of "making yourself thirsty" in order to satisfy your thirst. <br /><br />"the good" is not "satisfied preference", but "satistifed existing preference".<br /><br />I see that in the new version of "Practical Ethics" Singer attacks the problem more ʅʏʨʫnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-19663705838333137142011-04-26T07:19:52.430-05:002011-04-26T07:19:52.430-05:00If "the good" is a satisfied preference,...If "the good" is a satisfied preference, then making babies can increase the good. In a world with no humans (or other "higher" animals) there would be no satisfied preferences. The last pair of humans would have an obligation to make more humans. (Drug addicts have lots of unsatisfied preferences, so that example isn't a problem.)Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297159994901018071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-86528987794871614322011-04-26T02:30:52.316-05:002011-04-26T02:30:52.316-05:00I see lots of problems there. Even for utilitarian...I see lots of problems there. Even for utilitarians (e.g. preference utilitiarians à la Singer) it's not easy to see that creating a new life is good because they try to maximise the preferences that already exist. Otherwise it would be good to become drug addicts in order to satisfy those extra preferences. And utilitarians have problems accounting for super-erogatory actions, and that'sʅʏʨʫnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-34667702791270713602011-04-24T10:23:20.907-05:002011-04-24T10:23:20.907-05:00In that last comment, I was just responding to you...In that last comment, I was just responding to your worry about who doles out credit.Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297159994901018071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-63995969876068678982011-04-24T10:16:24.597-05:002011-04-24T10:16:24.597-05:00That "human life is a good thing" can be...That "human life is a good thing" can be taken in several senses.<br /><br />1. That given a human life, it is good to preserve, protect and respect it. Most everyone agrees about that. <br /><br />2. We should produce as many human lives as possible, since they are good and more of a good thing is better. That is much more debatable and seems to have no relation to 1.s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-18112796299126295902011-04-24T10:01:37.883-05:002011-04-24T10:01:37.883-05:00Wayne, Yes, that's very puzzling. How can it ...Wayne, Yes, that's very puzzling. How can it be that making good lives is good, yet there's no imperative to make more and more? That's our intuition, but it's hard to see what ethical principle accounts for it.<br /><br />Amos, Giving medical care to existing children is clearly a good thing to do. The question is whether creating new lives is also a good thing to do. "Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297159994901018071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-65139674065956350892011-04-24T08:28:15.511-05:002011-04-24T08:28:15.511-05:00I don't understand who is handing out the cred...I don't understand who is handing out the credits, but what fascinated me in the article is how<br />their devotion to an evil religious ideology permits them, in spite of their poverty, to avoid the evils generally associated with a culture of poverty: drugs, crime, alcoholism, violence and to create an organized, well-run community.s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-34772747503996733392011-04-23T17:17:37.290-05:002011-04-23T17:17:37.290-05:00I think there's some bridge thats needed for t...I think there's some bridge thats needed for the abstract principle that making babies is good to more babies are good, or this family making a baby is good.<br /><br />It's the circumstances that make having a baby good or bad. Al things being equal, having a baby adds to the utility of the world, but when a particular family has 4 or 8 kids (maybe at once) we reduce the amount of Waynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627147979307495870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-74758551898117232382011-04-23T14:58:18.570-05:002011-04-23T14:58:18.570-05:00From Genethics:
"However, as I am going to a...From <i>Genethics</i>:<br /><br />"However, as I am going to argue, human creative power should not be understood as merely the biological cpacity to create more of the same kind, bu tin a wider, more abstract sense, as the only source of value in the world. By their very will, human beings invest a valueless world with value..."<br /><br />My thoughts exactly.Faustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-81218792506019840932011-04-23T11:27:02.298-05:002011-04-23T11:27:02.298-05:00I'm inclined to go with "making babies is...I'm inclined to go with "making babies is value neutral" (at best). I think the focus on "lives" is the right one. Part of the problem is that a "baby" is a bad place to stop when thinking about "human life." Babies are protohumans. At birth they have virtually no capcities. They can barely even see, can't talk, can't control their own movementsFaustnoreply@blogger.com