@bweatherson But since they don’t exist yet, the thought is that there isn’t a set of preferences to interfere with. Influencing future people like this doesn’t stop them doing something so much as it creates them doing one thing or another.
@bweatherson More generally, I think that reference to welfare alone leaves things underdetermined, so we can’t say that there are worries about autonomy or equality. Re: autonomy, it’s not necessarily true that welfare changes will influence a future agent’s autonomy.
@bweatherson This looks like a pretty classic non-identity case, so option 2 will not contain anyone who objects to being incapable of D. If you care strictly about welfare, there is no worry here (unless some new detail of option 2 arises).
Complaints about voter turnout are a bit cliché, but the Ontario election’s dip despite COVID’s arrival and prevailing economic conditions & prospects is notably bad.
The house I’m living in has old doorknobs. They require pretty much constant attention, which is whatever, but I can’t work out why the slipping is happening. I just want to ask the designers why they made some choices. I feel this way about many, many things in this house.
@jleadermaynard Intellectual history: you’re all so clever that you don’t need me to state what my argument is. And it would be most impolite to criticise other scholars, or tell you how my argument differs from theirs. Work it out for yourselves as I read out my paper in a monotonous voice.
Thoughts on an unusually ill-conceived opinion piece:
1/ Unalloyed self-interest (“the West would be wise to let Mr. Putin sink in that [Ukrainian] morass”) is not wisdom.
https://t.co/rKiVNuOikr
5/ The biggest problem: the piece, intentionally or not, hides it’s true opinion, which is that Ukraine should be left to Putin’s devices while NATO draws a red line around itself. Perhaps, but the fig leaf of Cancel Culture shouldn’t substitute for argument to that effect.