Disqus - Latest Comments for Usyless

Re: Reasons to Have Zero Kids

Usyless — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:40:51 -0000

I think that moral reasons arise from our need to cooperate with others for mutual benefit, and not from a compulsion to choose 'the best world' according to some consequential analysis. My reasons have to do with metaethical concerns beyond the scope of this discussion. But yes, it is very counterintuitive, and I can see how it could look like a reductio ad absurdum to those who take ordinary ethical intuitions very seriously in choosing moral theories. I don't think ethics should be done that way, but again, that's outside the current issue.

And I agree that the right thing to do is push the button, and in virtue of this I would say that they have a right to my pushing the button (although this would be an odd way to put it). I don't mean to treat "rights" as narrowly as you seem to be reading, but rather broadly to refer to any moral claim people have on one another. The key is that moral demands arise from these claims that PERSONS have on each other and not on certain aggregative properties of states of the world as a whole.

Re: Reasons to Have Zero Kids

Usyless — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:10:49 -0000

I agree with Will - I think that someone has to exist for their welfare to receive moral consideration - merely possible persons do not have rights that I could violate. It helps that I'm not one who determines what is morally correct by assigning value to states of the world. It is worth noting, however, that denying the view that we should take the welfare of potential persons into account seems to lead to some pretty radical consequences.

Suppose I have a choice between creating a person in a state such that they will suffer tremendously for the entirety of their lives and creating one such that they will live a full, happy life. If welfare considerations don't come into the picture until they exist, there can be nothing wrong with doing the former. Suppose I can ensure that a child is born with horrible disfigurement and suffers in perpetual agony for the duration of their short, miserable life. There can be nothing wrong with my doing so, because after all, there's no one for me to harm until after the act is done. Of course, once they're here, I may be obligated to reduce its suffering, but strangely I was not obligated to effectually prevent it.

I think we should accept this consequence, but I've found that's not a popular response.

Re: Blame It on Gerald Dworkin for Blaming It on Ayn Rand

Usyless — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 10:57:53 -0000

Am I to take it that you find the "Blame racial justice" argument compelling too?

Re: Blame It on Gerald Dworkin for Blaming It on Ayn Rand

Usyless — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:15:29 -0000

Really, the actual case is actually even worse than the CRA example. They'd be more similar if it were additionally the case that CRA supporters were actually rabidly anti-civil rights in other areas, and if properly taking racial equality into account might have prevented the crisis.

Re: Blame It on Gerald Dworkin for Blaming It on Ayn Rand

Usyless — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:43:03 -0000

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't see anything especially unfair or ad hominem in Will's response. He seems to understand just fine that the original post focuses on Greenspan's fondness for unregulated derivatives (his "bit of an anti-regulatory bent relative to Alan Blinder"). But that's precisely the point. Dworkin takes this as a sign of Greenspan's adherence to Randian capitalist ideals, and concludes that those ideals were to blame (sorry, "a major factor") for the economic crisis, while ignoring the many very anti-free-market policy decisions Greenspan and others made which were far more fundamental to the collapse. It would be similar to someone singling out the Community Reinvestment Act as a contributing factor to the prevalence of risky lending, noting that some of its authors were interested in civil rights, and concluding that the ideals of racial justice are to blame for current market troubles. Will's response seems entirely appropriate.

Re: Blame It on Gerald Dworkin for Blaming It on Ayn Rand

Usyless — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:10:47 -0000

Oh, and lets not take Dworkin/Leiter's deficiencies as a reflection of philosophers as a whole.

Re: Blame It on Gerald Dworkin for Blaming It on Ayn Rand

Usyless — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:02:01 -0000

For some reason Leiter has changed "I think BHTV is great, but they really need to have competent interlocutors for the philosophers on the show." to "I think BHTV is great, but they really need to have better interlocutors for the philosophers on the show."

It's telling that nowhere in Dworkin's reply does he really address the content of your criticism in a way that demonstrates a modicum of understanding. Heck, with a line like "This leaves plenty of room for Wilkinson’s only other candidate for the crisis—Bill Clinton" one wonders if he even READ it.