Haha, speaking of perception you've got it in spades. I actually had to check the text, I originally called out EA directly, but then figured addressing it would require another article entirely.
Before writing the comment I ctl-F'd to make sure I hadn't misread, because I was like "This really reads like a takedown of EA, am I sure he didn't mention it?"
Thank you! This language of being rooted to withstand evil and do good goes along with McConkey's criticism of the deracinated. This is a distinction that people can feel, or at least I can. Being rooted in community is important, and something that people have casually observed being denuded over the years, I think leaning into the discomfort of rebuilding those bonds with neighbors is a good 1st step in re-establishing the root of the righteous.
Great piece. Utlitarianism always has to be subserviant to morality, because it is enivatibly preconditioned by it. Utiluty after all is slways and inevitably instrumental. Things are useful, insofar as they are useful for something. And that something ist precisely the imperatives of our morality. And these go beyond "Just be happy".
"Paul's Necessary Sin" is truly a great book, looking forward to your thoughts on it. Regarding the "end state" and utility - I think in a sense faith-based actions are a bet on an uncertain and open future that will be better because of that action. We can never anticipate it, and it may play out only in 2000 years, who knows? But if we are in touch with "whatever-it-is" (the teleological landscape? The information field? The Spirit? The world as perceived by the right hemisphere?), we might be able to get hints, or pointers. So I agree - faith-based morality is useful, just not in the way utilitarians conceptualize it, because it is not directed at immediate outcomes or payoffs, but at individual and collective long-term growth and inner development. Or so I think!
I agree 100%. Its tricky because it is really a verbal dispute. I'm using a different definition of utility than they are, but I also think it is a more useful definition, more holistic to account for the entire scope of outcomes across time and space, just difficult/impossible for the LHB dominated mindset to appreciate.
About the verbal dispute - yes. As I argued in my piece about EA, utilitarians and others who are addicted to abstract reasoning always use that to their advantage: if you level some obvious, common sense criticism at them, they evade it by claiming (for example) that utility can mean all sorts of things, or that personal values must be recognized, etc. But then their whole approach ultimately collapses into something vaguely religious (and better). If you point that out, they will revert back to their original position: no no, think of simple examples where it works! See how useful it is to limit your thinking to direct utility! Don't you wanna reduce suffering? Yadayada...
Buried in this piece is an implied critique of effective altruism, from a perspective that its proponents lack the sensory apparatus to perceive.
Haha, speaking of perception you've got it in spades. I actually had to check the text, I originally called out EA directly, but then figured addressing it would require another article entirely.
Before writing the comment I ctl-F'd to make sure I hadn't misread, because I was like "This really reads like a takedown of EA, am I sure he didn't mention it?"
Be moral. Be useful. I like that. That is why I said to hell to a life in education and learned how to write build, garden, ferment, hunt and fish.
Great poetic piece.
"A man shall not be established by wickedness; but the root of the righteous shall never be moved"
Thank you! This language of being rooted to withstand evil and do good goes along with McConkey's criticism of the deracinated. This is a distinction that people can feel, or at least I can. Being rooted in community is important, and something that people have casually observed being denuded over the years, I think leaning into the discomfort of rebuilding those bonds with neighbors is a good 1st step in re-establishing the root of the righteous.
Great piece. Utlitarianism always has to be subserviant to morality, because it is enivatibly preconditioned by it. Utiluty after all is slways and inevitably instrumental. Things are useful, insofar as they are useful for something. And that something ist precisely the imperatives of our morality. And these go beyond "Just be happy".
This is exceptionally well written, clear and compelling. Thank you!
Thank YOU for the kind words!
"Paul's Necessary Sin" is truly a great book, looking forward to your thoughts on it. Regarding the "end state" and utility - I think in a sense faith-based actions are a bet on an uncertain and open future that will be better because of that action. We can never anticipate it, and it may play out only in 2000 years, who knows? But if we are in touch with "whatever-it-is" (the teleological landscape? The information field? The Spirit? The world as perceived by the right hemisphere?), we might be able to get hints, or pointers. So I agree - faith-based morality is useful, just not in the way utilitarians conceptualize it, because it is not directed at immediate outcomes or payoffs, but at individual and collective long-term growth and inner development. Or so I think!
I agree 100%. Its tricky because it is really a verbal dispute. I'm using a different definition of utility than they are, but I also think it is a more useful definition, more holistic to account for the entire scope of outcomes across time and space, just difficult/impossible for the LHB dominated mindset to appreciate.
About the verbal dispute - yes. As I argued in my piece about EA, utilitarians and others who are addicted to abstract reasoning always use that to their advantage: if you level some obvious, common sense criticism at them, they evade it by claiming (for example) that utility can mean all sorts of things, or that personal values must be recognized, etc. But then their whole approach ultimately collapses into something vaguely religious (and better). If you point that out, they will revert back to their original position: no no, think of simple examples where it works! See how useful it is to limit your thinking to direct utility! Don't you wanna reduce suffering? Yadayada...
Ah yes, ye Olde time Motte and Bailey tactic...