those sentences only make semantic sense if “we” actually refers to “utilitarians”
Or if 1) “should” refers to true/informed preferences rather than currently endorsed preferences and 2) your true/informed preferences would be utilitarian. That distinction seems to be going out of fashion, though.
It seems obvious from context that multifoliaterose was assuming agreement with utilitarian values and making his arguments about what “we should” do based on that assumption, and not claiming that the true/informed preferences of everyone in this community would be utilitarian. (The post does not explicitly claim that, nor contains any arguments that might support the claim.)
That distinction seems to be going out of fashion, though.
Fair enough; I agree it was clearly not the reading multifoliaterose actually intended. I read multifoliaterose as saying to the extent that our values are utilitarian, cryonics doesn’t fulfill them well.
Why do you say that?
I guess it’s an impression I got from reading many conversations here.
I guess it’s an impression I got from reading many conversations here.
I would expect that most conversations involve currently endorsed preferences, simply because it’s much easier to discuss what we should do now given what we currently think our values are, than to make any nontrivial progress towards figuring out what our values would be if we were fully informed. I don’t think that constitutes evidence that people are forgetting the distinction (if that’s what you meant by “going out of fashion”).
I’d be interested to know if you had something else in mind.
those sentences only make semantic sense if “we” actually refers to “utilitarians”
Or if 1) “should” refers to true/informed preferences rather than currently endorsed preferences and 2) your true/informed preferences would be utilitarian. That distinction seems to be going out of fashion, though.
A utilitarian would endorse a non-utilitarian value system if doing so maximized utility.
A utilitarian would endorse a non-utilitarian value system if doing so maximized utilitarian utility, which is really the crux of the debate.
The word utilitarian is thrown around a lot here without clearly defining what is meant by it but I would guess that most of the non-utilitarians (like myself) here take issue primarily with the agent neutrality / universality and utility aggregation (whether averaging, summing or weighted summing) aspects commonly implied by utilitarianism as an ethical system rather than with the general idea of maximizing utility (however defined).
Or if 1) “should” refers to true/informed preferences rather than currently endorsed preferences and 2) your true/informed preferences would be utilitarian. That distinction seems to be going out of fashion, though.
It seems obvious from context that multifoliaterose was assuming agreement with utilitarian values and making his arguments about what “we should” do based on that assumption, and not claiming that the true/informed preferences of everyone in this community would be utilitarian. (The post does not explicitly claim that, nor contains any arguments that might support the claim.)
Why do you say that?
Fair enough; I agree it was clearly not the reading multifoliaterose actually intended. I read multifoliaterose as saying to the extent that our values are utilitarian, cryonics doesn’t fulfill them well.
I guess it’s an impression I got from reading many conversations here.
I would expect that most conversations involve currently endorsed preferences, simply because it’s much easier to discuss what we should do now given what we currently think our values are, than to make any nontrivial progress towards figuring out what our values would be if we were fully informed. I don’t think that constitutes evidence that people are forgetting the distinction (if that’s what you meant by “going out of fashion”).
I’d be interested to know if you had something else in mind.
Your original reading of my claim is the message that I intended to convey.
How is (2) not a definition of a utilitarian?
A utilitarian, in common usage, is someone who currently endorses utilitarianism.
(I share Steven’s desire to see the informed/currently-endorsed distinction used more consistently.)
A utilitarian would endorse a non-utilitarian value system if doing so maximized utility.
A utilitarian would endorse a non-utilitarian value system if doing so maximized utilitarian utility, which is really the crux of the debate.
The word utilitarian is thrown around a lot here without clearly defining what is meant by it but I would guess that most of the non-utilitarians (like myself) here take issue primarily with the agent neutrality / universality and utility aggregation (whether averaging, summing or weighted summing) aspects commonly implied by utilitarianism as an ethical system rather than with the general idea of maximizing utility (however defined).
Another crucial terminological distinction. Thanks.