↑ 18 References
Possible that Modest Utilitarianism is a good alternative name, I’ll add it as an alias for friendly utilitarianism.
Growing Thoughts
These are still very raw and undeveloped, but have a lot of content connected to them. Currently, both these growing thoughts seem to fall under the umbrella of think more scientifically, and more morally.
I don’t think I actually hold moral conceptions to a binary duality like this. Under the hood, moral considerations hold a value (and I consider that value to be determined by something like friendly utilitarianism).
friendly utilitarianism. I appreciate how Open Philanthropy and other impact-optimizing organizations think about these the variables of importance, neglectedness, and tractability to determine where they should focus resources for greatest marginal impact. How can we use utilitarian and consequentialist thinking to improve the way our institutions operate? Relatedly, how can I think about the way I proceed with my own work in this way? This thinking has led me to one of the core questions I try to ask about my work: can anyone else do what you do better than you?
This seems fine as it is. The arguments for this are basically utilitarian, but I won’t dive into this subject here.
Take into account my lifeview and workview. Some consideration should be made to recommendations of friendly utilitarianism.
In some ways, this is the central thesis that leads to both friendly utilitarianism and a clarity of thought.
If Free Will doesn’t exist, then what about friendly utilitarianism which relies on choice and opportunity cost?
I suggest that implicit and explicit effects should not be treated differently. Not only because it is not a morally valuable differentiation (see discussions of free will, and friendly utilitarianism), but also because we often wrongly differentiate direct and indirect causality.