I think from a wide-circle perspective, the things you’re talking about don’t look like a cost of a wide circle, so much as just reasons the problem is hard. From a wide-circle perspective, the cost of a narrow circle is that you try to solve a problem that’s easier than the real problem, and you don’t solve the real problem, and children in Africa continue to die of malaria. It sounds like you’re telling me that I shouldn’t care about children dying of malaria because they’re far away and can’t do anything for me and I could spend that money on myself and people close to me… and my reaction is that none of that stops children from dying of malaria, which is really actually a thing I care about and don’t want to stop caring about
There is yet another cost to a wide circle of moral concern, and that is the discrepancy with people who have a smaller circle. If you’re my compatriot or family member or fellow present human being, and you have a small circle of concern, I can expect you to allocate more of your agency to my benefit. If you have a wide circle of concern that includes all kinds of entities who can’t reciprocate, I benefit less from having you as an ally.
To be precise, this seems like a cost to Alice of Bob having a wide circle, if Alice and Bob are close. If they aren’t, and especially if we bring in a veil of ignorance, then Alice is likely to benefit somewhat from Bob having a wide circle. Not definite, but this still seems like a thing to note.
To be precise, this seems like a cost to Alice of Bob having a wide circle, if Alice and Bob are close. If they aren’t, and especially if we bring in a veil of ignorance, then Alice is likely to benefit somewhat from Bob having a wide circle.
Yes, but Alice doesn’t benefit from Bob’s having a circle so wide it contains nonhuman animals, far future entities or ecosystems/biodiversity for their own sake.
and my reaction is that none of that stops children from dying of malaria, which is really actually a thing I care about and don’t want to stop caring about
The OP asks us to reexamine our moral circle. Having done that, I find that nonhuman animals and far future beings are actually a thing I don’t care about and don’t want to start caring about.
I think from a wide-circle perspective, the things you’re talking about don’t look like a cost of a wide circle, so much as just reasons the problem is hard. From a wide-circle perspective, the cost of a narrow circle is that you try to solve a problem that’s easier than the real problem, and you don’t solve the real problem, and children in Africa continue to die of malaria. It sounds like you’re telling me that I shouldn’t care about children dying of malaria because they’re far away and can’t do anything for me and I could spend that money on myself and people close to me… and my reaction is that none of that stops children from dying of malaria, which is really actually a thing I care about and don’t want to stop caring about
To be precise, this seems like a cost to Alice of Bob having a wide circle, if Alice and Bob are close. If they aren’t, and especially if we bring in a veil of ignorance, then Alice is likely to benefit somewhat from Bob having a wide circle. Not definite, but this still seems like a thing to note.
Yes, but Alice doesn’t benefit from Bob’s having a circle so wide it contains nonhuman animals, far future entities or ecosystems/biodiversity for their own sake.
The OP asks us to reexamine our moral circle. Having done that, I find that nonhuman animals and far future beings are actually a thing I don’t care about and don’t want to start caring about.