3 ms·

Here's a copy I found: https://philosophysmith.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/alistair-norcross-22how-harms-outweighed-by-headaches22.pdf https://philosophysmit

Here's a copy I found: https://philosophysmith.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/alistair-norcross-22how-harms-outweighed-by-headaches22.pdf https://philosophysmith.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/alist... It's pretty short, I liked it. Was surprised to find myself agreeing with it at the end of my first read.

n4r9 2y ago
Thanks. It's very clever how he uses probabilistic variants to move between scenarios. I've read to the end and whilst I'm not convinced, it's definitely given me food for thought. I'm stuck on two bits so far: * He slides between talking about personal decisions vs decisions about someone else. The argument for Headache is couched in terms of whether an average person would drive to the chemist. Whilst the argument for shifting from Headache to Many Headaches is couched in terms of decisions made by an external party. This feels problematic to me. There may be some workaround. * He describes rejecting transitivity as being overwhelmingly implausible. Is that obvious? Ethical considerations ultimately boil down to subjective evaluations, and there seems no obvious reason why those evaluations would be transitive.