"Though it's wrong of course," why do you say this yet argue for this perspective? It doesn't seem like anything in your article measurably disproved Negative Utilitarianism?
yeah the post was giving some intuitions for nu. but i don’t think it’s correct. and yeah i don’t defend that in the post —i was just noting my actual opinion
So why do you say it is wrong still? I found this post titled “You are wrong about negative utilitarianism” by Overmuser pretty convincing (and generally well made).
i think this is basically composable into magnitude (in general eye strain worth noticing is bad more than eating the cake that one eats every day on this particular is good—but eg making someone miss eating their birthday cake to work over lunch would be pretty clearly morally bad), and the general principle of "inaction is much more excusable than deliberate evil action", without having to invoke neg utilitarianism at all
"Though it's wrong of course," why do you say this yet argue for this perspective? It doesn't seem like anything in your article measurably disproved Negative Utilitarianism?
yeah the post was giving some intuitions for nu. but i don’t think it’s correct. and yeah i don’t defend that in the post —i was just noting my actual opinion
So why do you say it is wrong still? I found this post titled “You are wrong about negative utilitarianism” by Overmuser pretty convincing (and generally well made).
i think this is basically composable into magnitude (in general eye strain worth noticing is bad more than eating the cake that one eats every day on this particular is good—but eg making someone miss eating their birthday cake to work over lunch would be pretty clearly morally bad), and the general principle of "inaction is much more excusable than deliberate evil action", without having to invoke neg utilitarianism at all