u/Inside-Weather4033

>Some decision theorists argue that when playing a prisoner’s dilemma-type game against a sufficiently similar opponent, we should cooperate to make it more likely that our opponent also cooperates. This idea, which Hofstadter calls superrationality, has strong implications when combined with the insight from modern physics that we probably live in a large universe or multiverse of some sort. If we care about what happens in civilizations located elsewhere in the multiverse, we can superrationally cooperate with some of their inhabitants. That is, if we take their values into account, this makes it more likely that they do the same for us. In this paper, I attempt to assess the practical implications of this idea. I argue that to reap the full gains from trade, everyone should maximize the same impartially weighted sum of the utility functions of all collaborators. I also argue that we can obtain at least weak evidence about the content of these utility functions. In practice, the application of superrationality implies that we should promote causal cooperation, moral pluralism, moral reflection, and ensure that our descendants, who will be smarter and thus better at finding out how to benefit other superrationalists in the universe, engage in superrational cooperation

>It is commonly believed that animal ethics entails respect for natural processes, because nonhuman animals are able to live relatively easy and happy lives in the wild. However, this assumption is wrong.

>Due to the most widespread reproductive strategy in nature, r-selection, the overwhelming majority of nonhuman animals die shortly after they come into existence.

>They starve or are eaten alive, which means their suffering vastly outweighs their happiness. Hence, concern for nonhuman animals entails that we should try to intervene in nature to reduce the enormous amount of harm they suffer.

>Even if this conclusion may seem extremely counter-intuitive at first, it can only be rejected from a speciesist viewpoint.

>Several leading advocates for reducing others' suffering are passionate about the cause in part because they've suffered so much themselves. Should we fear that as technologically advanced individuals suffer less, they'll care less about the suffering of the weak and powerless? Or will less personal suffering give them more emotional capacity and sensitivity to care about all sentient beings? In addition to raising these questions, I also speculate on the implications of suffering as portrayed in the media.

I know there is post-modern feminism, but what about metamodernism?

"Various views deny that suffering has a positive counterpart. Proponents of such views often pursue a line of argument that focuses on the prevalence of subtle frustrations and bothersome sensations. That is, when we typically think that we are in a neutral state, and we claim that some pleasure takes us above that neutral state, what we are experiencing is really a subtly bothered and unsatisfied state that becomes (somewhat) relieved of its commonly overlooked unpleasant features (see e.g. Sherman, 2017, pp. 103-107; Gloor, 2017, sec. 2.1; Knutsson, 2022, sec. 5).

This essay will pursue a different line of argument. Rather than focusing on unpleasant states, and arguing for their subtle omnipresence, my aim here is instead to zoom in on the purportedly positive side. I will argue that purportedly positive experiences do not possess any property that renders them genuine opposites of painful and uncomfortable experiences, neither in phenomenological nor axiological terms."

"Are there different possible outcomes given the present state of the universe? One might think that much depends on our answer to this question. For example, if there are no alternative possible futures given the present state of the universe, one might think that ethics and efforts to improve the world would cease to make sense."

Is there a name for this and if not should we make one?

It seems to be beyond normal masochism.

Is it the same as fuzzy logic or different?

I know this may sound incredibly pedantic but as a logical anti-realist and mathematical fictionalist I can't help but ask.

When I read studies I usually don't see the justification of their axioms and assumptions in regards to the substantial metaphysical commitment to logic and mathematics; classic logic especially.

Is there a reason scientists aren't expected to do this?

I very commonly see circularity labeled as a fallacy but some systems of knowledge and justification (I.E. Coherentism) allow for circularity under certain conditions. This can be based on graded holistic coherence where multiple claims overlap and "coherence" with each other and the virtuous circularity is acceptable on the basis of explanatory power.

I less commonly see infinite regress labeled as a fallacy but I have seen it here and there (I.E. Opponents of resemblance nominalism). Infintism is a system of justification relying on virtuous infinite regress. It abides by avoiding arbitrary stopping points in justification, saying that an actual or potentially accessible infinite regress provides justification. Justification can also be recontexualized as an ongoing process that never ends molding well with (but not mutually exclusive to) the fallibilism commonly accepted in epistemology / philosophy of science.

If so why? It seems a bit essentialist and I'm unsure how you bridge the gap between unique personal experience and expertise on the topic.

I have an intermediate knowledge of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, but what is interacting worlds? Is this interpretation taken seriously?

(From the beginning of the article)

"Most Effective Altruists don’t look like anarchists. The latter have a (charmingly) grungy flavor, the aura of half-dazed rebels perennially stumbling their way out of Woodstock reunions. By contrast, Effective Altruists have the trappings of recent MIT and Tufts graduates, lanky tech nerds and philosophy majors with an incomprehensible infatuation with “Pi Day” and something called “preference utilitarianism.” But Effective Altruism, as a movement inviting us “to do the most good,” contains the seeds of something far more radical than its adherents may suggest. Done right, Effective Altruism can augment the anti-authoritarian coalition that we need to undermine the polygamous marriage of materialism, authoritarian government, and unbridled corporate power."

What are the advantages and disadvantages? I'm guessing those who donate to charities wouldn't want a higher water bill as it would detract from the donations.

How would it affect wild animal suffering? Others humans? Yourself?