少点错误 04月19日 05:37
Consequentialists should have a comprehensive set of deontological beliefs they adhere to
index_new5.html
../../../zaker_core/zaker_tpl_static/wap/tpl_guoji1.html

 

本文探讨了有效利他主义者在追求最大化幸福和最小化痛苦时,可能面临的困境。文章认为,过分依赖理性计算可能导致个体牺牲自我,反而降低了生活质量。作者提倡建立一套类似宗教道德的、全面的义务论信念,认为这比单纯依赖结果导向的理性思考,更能有效地服务于功利主义的目标。文章强调了在有限认知下,通过保守行事和关注个体内心平静,来实现更长远、更广泛的幸福。

🤔有效利他主义者常因过度理性计算而牺牲自我,导致生活不快乐。作者认为,这种对结果的过度关注,可能适得其反。

💡作者主张,与其依赖明确的理性推理,不如建立一套类似宗教道德的、全面的义务论信念。这种信念能更有效地服务于功利主义的目标。

🧘作者建议,在有限的认知下,应保守行事,关注个体内心的平静与满足。通过培养内在的规则和情绪调节能力,可以更有效地追求幸福。

🌱文章的核心在于,提倡从个体自身出发,通过内在的平静和自我管理,来实现更广泛的幸福和更长远的目标。这是一种更可持续、更稳健的利他主义实践方式。

Published on April 18, 2025 8:50 PM GMT

One thing I believe happens a lot to effective altruists, who are generally (all?) consequentialists of some sort, is that their rational calculus leads them to efface themselves or lead a life much more miserable than they would've if they had spent less time thinking about their altruism. I think EA men and women are at the final frontier of consideration of the link between rational self-interest and true altruism, where their desire to do good from the point of view of the universe is leading them into great punishment and one would have difficulty convincing them the aforementioned link is strong. Nonetheless, I believe it is strong, and would like to make the case that a comprehensive set of deontological beliefs, akin to a religious morality, would objectively serve consequentialist ends better than the reliance on explicit reasoning about outcomes that is central to EA.

Here's my argument:

Say you're a utilitarian who wants to maximize the happiness of all beings throughout all of time and minimize their suffering. It's tempting to think of practical things you might do in this direction, but I think first you should clarify the scope of your intention. You are a finite being within a reality that far surpasses your knowledge, and may do so endlessly, and you would like to live your life towards an as-good-as infinite end. Whatever theory of decision making you subscribe to, and whatever metaphysics you have, the only way to safely act in a situation like that is predictably. The amount of information you would need to have to have a high probability of following you morality exactly is too great to make all but the most minor and inconsequential decisions. If you care about your morality you should be acting as conservatively as possible.

You want to tilt the balance in favor of your utilitarian morality, so the question becomes "what is the least consequential thing I can do that is likeliest to promote happiness and minimize suffering?"

In other words you want to perform the moral good that is nearest at hand.

This means you start with your own mind, and moving as gently as possible befriend it and create within it genuine contentment. All of your rational behavior after that is captured within the concept of emotional regulation. If you develop a set of internally consistent rules to follow for the various kinds of events you can guess you may face in life you will have something to ground yourself with and thereby regulate your emotions as effectively as you can.

That's the essence of effective altruism.



Discuss

Fish AI Reader

Fish AI Reader

AI辅助创作,多种专业模板,深度分析,高质量内容生成。从观点提取到深度思考,FishAI为您提供全方位的创作支持。新版本引入自定义参数,让您的创作更加个性化和精准。

FishAI

FishAI

鱼阅,AI 时代的下一个智能信息助手,助你摆脱信息焦虑

联系邮箱 441953276@qq.com

相关标签

有效利他主义 理性 幸福 道德 功利主义
相关文章