Yeah, we read Railton’s sophisticated consequentialism, which sounded pretty good. Norcross on why consequentialism is about offering suggestions and not requirements was also not too bad. I feel like the texts I am reading are more valuable than the classes, to be frank. Thanks for the input!
To answer a question you gave in the OP, Jackson’s views are very close to what Eliezer’s metaethics seem to be, and Railton has some similarities with Luke’s views.
Hmmm that’s right! I can’t believe I didn’t see that, thanks. I think Railton is more similar to Luke then Jackson is to Eliezer though, if I understand Eliezer well enough. Is there a comparison anywhere outlining the differences between what Eliezer and Luke think across different fields?
Yeah, we read Railton’s sophisticated consequentialism, which sounded pretty good. Norcross on why consequentialism is about offering suggestions and not requirements was also not too bad. I feel like the texts I am reading are more valuable than the classes, to be frank. Thanks for the input!
To answer a question you gave in the OP, Jackson’s views are very close to what Eliezer’s metaethics seem to be, and Railton has some similarities with Luke’s views.
Hmmm that’s right! I can’t believe I didn’t see that, thanks. I think Railton is more similar to Luke then Jackson is to Eliezer though, if I understand Eliezer well enough. Is there a comparison anywhere outlining the differences between what Eliezer and Luke think across different fields?
You should try some Brad Hooker. One of the most defensible versions of consequentialism out there.
Cool, I will check him out. Thanks.