3 ms·

In which the author presents an appeal-to-consequences argument against taking a hard line against accepting appeal-to-consequences arguments. At least that is

In which the author presents an appeal-to-consequences argument against taking a hard line against accepting appeal-to-consequences arguments. At least that is self-consistent, while an appeal-to-consequences argument against accepting appeal-to-consequences arguments would not be. But what sort of argument against accepting appeal-to-consequences arguments would be self-consistent? After rolling that one around for a while, I would tentatively suggest that it is self-serving appeal-to-consequences arguments that we should be most suspicious of, while genuinely greater-good ones deserve consideration. That did not take long to 'go meta.' Maybe it is a sign that this, like many other ethics issues, is resistant to doctrinaire solutions, which is pretty much where the author ends up.

jefftk 7y ago
The fallacy of appealing to consequences is not "you should do this thing because it has better consequences" (that's Consequentialism) but instead the clearly false "you should think this thing because if it were true that would be good". Here I'm responding to Taylor's broader use of it, where she's also including the idea that if saying X would have bad consequences you should avoid saying X. Examples: * Consequentialism: we should evaluate vaccines based on the effect they have on people * Appeal to Consequences: it would be horrible if vaccines were actually net-negative, so they can't be * Taylor's extended Appeal to Consequences: see the post
- prostheticvamp 7y ago
  It seems that the “extended” appeals to consequences, per the post, -is- consequentialism. Consequentialism: evaluate X based on its consequences Extended: evaluate X, where X is the verb “to speak”, based on its consequences Appeal to Consequences: evaluate X based on desired consequences rather than predicted consequences Am I misunderstanding?
  - jefftk 7y ago
    You're not misunderstanding. Taylor is arguing, from a consequentialist perspective, that trying to evaluate the consequences of speaking counterintuitively leads to bad outcomes and so we shouldn't do it. This is a consequentialist argument, but a bit of an ironic one! My post is responding by saying that it's important to have some situations where you can speak fully freely, but there are also times when you really do need to consider what might happen in response to your words.

jefftk 7y ago

The fallacy of appealing to consequences is not "you should do this thing because it has better consequences" (that's Consequentialism) but instead the clearly false "you should think this thing because if it were true that would be good". Here I'm responding to Taylor's broader use of it, where she's also including the idea that if saying X would have bad consequences you should avoid saying X. Examples: * Consequentialism: we should evaluate vaccines based on the effect they have on people * Appeal to Consequences: it would be horrible if vaccines were actually net-negative, so they can't be * Taylor's extended Appeal to Consequences: see the post

prostheticvamp 7y ago
It seems that the “extended” appeals to consequences, per the post, -is- consequentialism. Consequentialism: evaluate X based on its consequences Extended: evaluate X, where X is the verb “to speak”, based on its consequences Appeal to Consequences: evaluate X based on desired consequences rather than predicted consequences Am I misunderstanding?
- jefftk 7y ago
  You're not misunderstanding. Taylor is arguing, from a consequentialist perspective, that trying to evaluate the consequences of speaking counterintuitively leads to bad outcomes and so we shouldn't do it. This is a consequentialist argument, but a bit of an ironic one! My post is responding by saying that it's important to have some situations where you can speak fully freely, but there are also times when you really do need to consider what might happen in response to your words.