↑ 17 References
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).
In some ways, this is the central thesis that leads to both friendly utilitarianism and a clarity of thought.
This seems fine as it is. The arguments for this are basically utilitarian, but I won’t dive into this subject here.
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 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.
Possible that Modest Utilitarianism is a good alternative name, I’ll add it as an alias for friendly utilitarianism.
Take into account my lifeview and workview. Some consideration should be made to recommendations of friendly utilitarianism.
If Free Will doesn’t exist, then what about friendly utilitarianism which relies on choice and opportunity cost?