[graphpapa]

The point of the speaker is that /in general/ these types of comparison amount to equivocation of the incommensurable, and this characteristic leads to progressively more unintuitive results as the breadth of application expands. The fact that the trolley problem intuitively suggests the opposite (it just makes sense!) is kind of the jumping off point for the interesting conversation.

This is a kantian imperative type concern. The question is: at the very highest level, should we use this principle /to restructure our society/. At the scale of influence of these schools of thought have the impact is unintuitive because it challenges the makeup of the normative fabric that society tacitly exists within. The more you apply the principle the less familiar notion of charity even becomes. The new thing that emerges is a purer and purer reflection of the ideological core of utilitarianism. As this slow move begins it seems wise to ask ‘do we want to move towards a society structured according to this principle?’.

The fact that the logic holds in a simple ‘charity is a fixed structure, I am already committed to giving X amount away, I am torn between two choices, equivocation and metric comparison is possible between these two similar options, an independent organisation has scored the effectiveness of these charities, which should I choose?’ Kind of does not relate to the complexity of the problem if you take the logic to the level of society wide acceptance as guiding principle.

I’m not saying EA really has the power to guide our /entire/ society but it is so enormously well funded that it is certainly a conversation worth having. It was the point of this podcast to discuss those more complex implications of utilitarianism in general which you have not considered noteworthy.

[boxed]

Using big words to sound fancy doesn't actually make what you say logical.

Helping more people > helping fewer people.

Helping some people > killing some people.

This is not hard philosophy. It's like straight out of the Kalama Sutta. You know what is blameful. You know what is blameless.

[graphpapa]

This is just bait you didn’t make an attempt to engage with my angle. I write earnestly I’m interested in what you disagree with