Another way to avoid the paradox is to care about other people’s satisfaction (more complicated than that, but that’s not the point) from their point of view, which encompasses their frame of reference.
Another way perhaps is to restate implementing improvements as soon as possible as maximizing total goodness in (the future of) the universe. Particularly, if an improvement could only be implemented once, but it would be twice as effective tomorrow instead of today, do it tomorrow.
Another way to avoid the paradox is to care about other people’s satisfaction (more complicated than that, but that’s not the point) from their point of view, which encompasses their frame of reference.
I don’t see why you wouldn’t do it this way, since that’s the basic, fundamental moral intuition we derive from our faculty of empathy.
Another way to avoid the paradox is to care about other people’s satisfaction (more complicated than that, but that’s not the point) from their point of view, which encompasses their frame of reference.
Another way perhaps is to restate implementing improvements as soon as possible as maximizing total goodness in (the future of) the universe. Particularly, if an improvement could only be implemented once, but it would be twice as effective tomorrow instead of today, do it tomorrow.
I don’t see why you wouldn’t do it this way, since that’s the basic, fundamental moral intuition we derive from our faculty of empathy.
I guess I didn’t make myself at all clear on that point, I ascribe to both of the above!