EAG London really did fill me with hope by the sheer number of interesting and impactful people that exist. It’s so fulfilling to talk to people from all over the world whom I would have never met, but somehow we all found ourselves thinking deeply about the same things and asking similar questions.
"Specifically, it confuses the proper objects of evaluative attitudes with the content of the attitudes. When helping other people, your attitude should not be joy in bringing about the good de dicto (at least, if the fetishism concern is correct). The content of your attitude shouldn’t be concern for the abstract good. But the object of your attitude should be whatever is good.
If something is good, then definitionally it’s worth caring about. So you ought to be concerned de re with all the things that are good de dicto. You should care about people as individuals, but the things that you should care about are the things that matter. Put more simply: you should care about all the things that matter, but your attitude shouldn’t just be concern for abstract mattering, but concern for the particular thing."
This just *is* caring de re. I think the view you describe here is the same view that people like Brian Weatherson and Michael Smith hold -- which I take it were supposed to be the people you were arguing against.
Sorry for the late reply. I had in mind the people who specifically think there's something objectionably fetishistic about caring about the good de dicto in this sense.
But are there anyone who holds that (genuinely curious, I might just not be aware). I’d think that having the objects of your concern be the good de dicto would be the same as having the objects of your concern be the good de re, since both pick out the same set of things. Wouldn’t de re vs de dicto caring only make a difference to the content of your attitude—where you agree it should be de re?
> Alarmingly, he thinks that odds are non-trivial that factory farming sticks around after AGI.
I would be very surprised if AGI ends factory farming. AGI isn't a second coming of christ that will make all things right. Most people working on AI want it aligned with humans specifically. Guess what humans do? Factory farming
I heard at least three people stop mid-sentence to notice you walking by and say "wow it's Bentham's Bulldog!"
😂
Was great meeting you there!
EAG London really did fill me with hope by the sheer number of interesting and impactful people that exist. It’s so fulfilling to talk to people from all over the world whom I would have never met, but somehow we all found ourselves thinking deeply about the same things and asking similar questions.
Good post!
But regarding this passage:
"Specifically, it confuses the proper objects of evaluative attitudes with the content of the attitudes. When helping other people, your attitude should not be joy in bringing about the good de dicto (at least, if the fetishism concern is correct). The content of your attitude shouldn’t be concern for the abstract good. But the object of your attitude should be whatever is good.
If something is good, then definitionally it’s worth caring about. So you ought to be concerned de re with all the things that are good de dicto. You should care about people as individuals, but the things that you should care about are the things that matter. Put more simply: you should care about all the things that matter, but your attitude shouldn’t just be concern for abstract mattering, but concern for the particular thing."
This just *is* caring de re. I think the view you describe here is the same view that people like Brian Weatherson and Michael Smith hold -- which I take it were supposed to be the people you were arguing against.
Sorry for the late reply. I had in mind the people who specifically think there's something objectionably fetishistic about caring about the good de dicto in this sense.
But are there anyone who holds that (genuinely curious, I might just not be aware). I’d think that having the objects of your concern be the good de dicto would be the same as having the objects of your concern be the good de re, since both pick out the same set of things. Wouldn’t de re vs de dicto caring only make a difference to the content of your attitude—where you agree it should be de re?
Excellent piece, Matthew! Hope to meet you at the next one. Your prose means a lot to me; keep writing as you do :)
> Alarmingly, he thinks that odds are non-trivial that factory farming sticks around after AGI.
I would be very surprised if AGI ends factory farming. AGI isn't a second coming of christ that will make all things right. Most people working on AI want it aligned with humans specifically. Guess what humans do? Factory farming