defend the indefensible: utilitarianism

moral philosophy has great value until it attempts to establish absolutes. at that point it becomes a runaway trolley and something of intrinsic value is about to get smashed.

Rationalism/Real England crossover - effective altruists buying a Blackpool hotel and opening a sort of research centre/commune/monastery.
http://effective-altruism.com/ea/1pc/ea_hotel_with_free_accommodation_and_board_for/

terrifying thought that ILX might be shaping the world outside it like the faux conspiracists of Foucault's Pendulum

B&B altruists finding themselves inexplicably drawn to start a band with the swagger of Oasis.

The cellars could serve as a nuclear bunker of moderate protection. It will be relatively low cost to keep a stockpile of long lasting food down there, which could be slowly used and replenished by the kitchen over a 2-5 year cycle.

Also, growing the EA community in Northern England in general could be seen as a hedge against x-risk, i.e lessen the number of eggs (EAs) in the same, higher risk baskets (London and the South East). Blackpool might be hard to get to in the event of a catastrophe, but the flip side of this is that there would be a lower risk from hostile actors (mercenaries, milita), as well as lower direct damage from nukes and fallout.

Post-apocalyptic effective altruists! That is a cause I would donate to.

most EAs i know irl are really decent and kind people

the PDF j. posted back in March has some good stuff in it about how effective altruism is BS

As I discuss below, EA’s hidden curriculum includes at least four lessons: (1) Effective Altruists are heroic rescuers; (2) doing good is largely an individualistic project; (3) doing the most good does not require listening to those affected by the issues one is trying to address; and (4) anger is not an appropriate response to severe poverty. I am not suggesting that Effective Altruists consciously believe these lessons or teach them explicitly; nor can I offer here evidence about the extent to which they have been taken up. But I do think that EA conveys them. Moreover, these lessons are not mere window-dressing; they serve important functions in helping EA attract and retain members.

but it also contains stuff I vehemently disagree with like

Critics of charity will object that in a just world private individuals would not be able to accumulate enough money to make voluntary donating a significant driver of social change, and in the current (unjust) world the wealthy are unlikely to support reforms that would limit their ability to accumulate. I think this objection is overstated, both because an effective social practice of donating does not require the excessive accumulation that we associate with such megadonors as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, and because individuals often donate to support political reforms that will reduce their own ability to accumulate.

Anyone still a consequentialist? If so, why?

everyone?

Clearly false.

every couple of years I google Peter Singer to see if he's still alive (currently: yes)

U think people voting for joe biden on deolontological principles?

no I think people vote for joe biden for no reason

I do not think people by and large engage in moral reasoning when they decide to vote or in advance of most other choices they make

silby i love u welcome back but that doesnt make sense at all

nor does utilitarianism

i don’t know what your definition of moral reasoning is and i am aware your very cool posting style is just to angrily say stuff without deigning to ever give reasons, but it seems to me that the consequences of donald trump being president for another four years were weighing on many people’s minds

I’ve lost track of my reasons if you want me tbrrwu

I don’t even know what a reason is anymore flopson

silbipsism

That’s where I believe everyone exists except me

Anyway first response hall of fame itt

I am still a utilitarian

Philpapers (though that was 2009) has

Normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics?
Other 301 / 931 (32.3%)
Accept or lean toward: deontology 241 / 931 (25.9%)
Accept or lean toward: consequentialism 220 / 931 (23.6%)
Accept or lean toward: virtue ethics 169 / 931 (18.2%)

https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

I'm a consequentialist but not a utilitarian.

well I'm a moral sceptic really but inasmuch as we still can should be excellent to each other, consequentialism is the only game in town.

I reject ethical rationalism after Hume