If someone were to write the same proposal from the point of view of a sequence on how to most effectively maximize animal welfare through research and optimal philanthropy, it would hardly be relevant to discuss whether it is unconditionally good to maximize animal welfare. Sure this discussion might be useful to have, but when an article starts with “Suppose that” you don’t start by fighting this hypothetical.
You know what, you are right. I let my aversion to diego’s writings get the better of me. I still don’t like it when rationality is replaced by advocacy, but he did state it as a hypothetical.
How is this in any way relevant?
If someone were to write the same proposal from the point of view of a sequence on how to most effectively maximize animal welfare through research and optimal philanthropy, it would hardly be relevant to discuss whether it is unconditionally good to maximize animal welfare. Sure this discussion might be useful to have, but when an article starts with “Suppose that” you don’t start by fighting this hypothetical.
You know what, you are right. I let my aversion to diego’s writings get the better of me. I still don’t like it when rationality is replaced by advocacy, but he did state it as a hypothetical.