this blog has excellent title---i view it as an 'EA apologist' blog (or one created by one who follows the dogma./religion EAism).

i guess the question raised by this blog post (if thats not redundant/oxymoron--does blog=post?) is then what is the implication? does this invalidate 'mildly moderate squishy deonotology'' (or whatever its called)?

if you increase/decrease it by +/-1% does the ideology give a clear plan of action?

(e.g. its ok to kill 3.519 people to save 2.718 or reverse or difference).

my take is the problem is irresolvable beginning with the qustion.

i guess even trolls must express themselves to get their d/qalys (+?).

bulldog love altruists and reverse. good cops. (peace) out.

Expand full comment

Meh. Giving moral people extra bad choices can be bad, since it will create a unique situation where many people sticking to what is right makes the world considerably worse.

Ultimately, it's the same factual question: Will passing the buck cause more then 100 people to die? There is a yes or no answer to that question, and it is outcome determinative

Expand full comment