"formulate the question" suggests that @Meaningness understands that every framework assumes you ought to follow its advice in each case. What hit rate short of 100% still makes you a good person is his question.
-
-
Replying to @Mjreard @Meaningness
I’m also not sure it’s true that every framework is equally prescriptive. Many allow for supererogation, which means that they are under-specified as against the set of possible actions.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Cullen_OK @Mjreard
Do you know of a framework that gets specific enough about what it is supererogatory that it provides concrete guidance in practice?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @Mjreard
Utilitarianism does in the sense that only expected-utility-maximizing actions are permissible, and all possible actions are cardinally ranked by their expected utility.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Cullen_OK @Mjreard
That seems to deny that there are supererogatory acts (ie optimal but not required)?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @Mjreard
Yes, that’s a bullet I bite. I don’t find the demandingness objection compelling. I agree it’s interesting to think about how we should evaluate persons in light of the fact that they won’t maximize EU. But I interpreted the original question differently :-)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Cullen_OK @Mjreard
Oh. What did you take the original question to be?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @Mjreard
Approximately: “For any action, how good would it be if I took that action?”
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Not at all… sorry to have stated it unclearly!
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.