Richard Y. Chappell🔸

Academic Philosopher. Posts better stuff at Pledge #54 with @GivingWhatWeCan

[Richard Y. Chappell🔸 @RYChappell]

Maybe I'll take this opportunity to re-share some of my favourite posts. 🧵
(1) 'My Big Ideas' highlights and explains five major themes from my work
https://t.co/dfFR2aByLe

[Richard Y. Chappell🔸 @RYChappell]

Can Google Debug Florida? I wish them well...
https://t.co/1E5J5rhLTq

[Richard Y. Chappell🔸 @RYChappell]

Compare @AndyMasley's "big national microwave": https://t.co/38OEmMWGy3

[Richard Y. Chappell🔸 @RYChappell]

“Data centers are energy intensive” is like “Cities are energy intensive”. True but misleading. Cities concentrate population in a way that’s much more energy-efficient than having a similar population dispersed. Data centers do a similar thing for computation.

[Richard Y. Chappell🔸 @RYChappell]

@NavinFS @AndyMasley That's not net favorability. You compared the wrong questions ("uniquely most support" vs "among those you oppose"). The actual "support" number is 49%
https://t.co/VynFTqOyYS

[Richard Y. Chappell🔸 @RYChappell]

@heymike33 No, I'm on board with there being objective goods that are *even more* worth pursuing than neutral things you happen to subjectively enjoy. But I think we should be dubious of the idea of objective bads that are "degrading" even if you enjoy them.

[Richard Y. Chappell🔸 @RYChappell]

My latest post examines a commonality between conservative sexual ethics (based on natural law theory) and a recent argument for the intrinsic badness of human-LLM pseudo-friendships.

[Discourse @Earthaways1]

Conversation with @RYChappell on longtermism, consequentialism, population ethics, moral uncertainty, and the future of humanity.

https://t.co/emJY1oUBLD

[Richard Y. Chappell🔸 @RYChappell]

@dioscuri Factorio is the platonic form

[Richard Y. Chappell🔸 @RYChappell]

Right. Markets are a useful tool in many contexts, but you'd have to be an absolute tool yourself to think that we can never identify better opportunities for doing good. See also Brian Berkey's guest essay on 'Utilitarianism and Business Ethics':
https://t.co/h0QwOHXz85

[Benjamin Todd @ben_j_todd]

@ohimani There's no reason to expect the market to look after the interests of future generations or animals or the environment, which can't participate in it.

It also weights people's interests proportionally to their wealth, which isn't great if you're born into the bottom billion.

[Richard Y. Chappell🔸 @RYChappell]

@Benthamsbulldog Not just correspondence, it's the order of explanation. What you should do is *explained by* what you should hope for, whereas robust deontology reverses the order of explanation.

[Richard Y. Chappell🔸 @RYChappell]

Indeed, some of the best work takes the form of "this view probably isn't true, but it's got more going for it than the rest of you currently realize, and here's why..."

[Philip Goff @Philip_Goff]

Most philosophers don't *believe* the view they defend, they just think it's more probable than the alternatives.

[Richard Y. Chappell🔸 @RYChappell]

@PlasmaBallin Sounds it! https://t.co/NvGXx0TZCo

[Matt Reardon @Mjreard]

@RYChappell Taylor has expressed sympathy for Luigi Mangione, equated non-maskers (in 2023-24, perhaps now) with murderers, doxxed Libs of TikTok (and some lower profile people). She generally pursues online arguments about her left wing positions with a high level of personal animus

[Richard Y. Chappell🔸 @RYChappell]

I used to find it distressing when people were publicly hostile towards the idea of doing good effectively. But there's something to be said for having the right enemies! (I don't know Lorenz but many other prominent opponents of EA are really transparently vicious.)

[Matt Reardon @Mjreard]

What do Pete Hegseth, Marc Andreessen, and Taylor Lorenz all agree on? Effective Altruism is the worst! Learn more at effectivealtruism dot org

[Richard Y. Chappell🔸 @RYChappell]

@Benthamsbulldog Not if they have some understanding of "right thing" that's independent of preferable consequences.

[Richard Y. Chappell🔸 @RYChappell]

@Benthamsbulldog I think of consequentialism as more about *teleology*: we have reason to choose an action because we have (antecedent) reason to prefer its outcome. That's compatible with having agent-relative reasons to prefer some outcomes over others.

[Richard Y. Chappell🔸 @RYChappell]

@Benthamsbulldog From section 1.2 ("Is Agent-Neutrality Essential?") of my 'Core Consequentialism' paper - https://t.co/rJhGNXJ6Ek

[Richard Y. Chappell🔸 @RYChappell]

@Benthamsbulldog Yeah, impartiality and moral realism are probably the views I defend with the least confidence. (I find agent-relative welfarist consequentialism -- giving extra weight to friends & family, etc. -- fairly credible.)

[Richard Y. Chappell🔸 @RYChappell]

That said, in my own case I mostly argue for views that I'm pretty confident in. (I definitely do believe that some form of consequentialism is the correct moral theory, for example.)

[Richard Y. Chappell🔸 @RYChappell]

Helen's book on idealism is my fav example of this: https://t.co/WIK1hhZ3yI

[Richard Y. Chappell🔸 @RYChappell]

When we know there are good reasons our emotions are overlooking, we need to find other ways to ensure that our behavior is suitably reasons-responsive. https://t.co/5vXrKFIHga