u/Shepherd_of_Ideas

Millions of poor Europeans 100 years ago migrated to the Americas. Soon enough, many more people across the world will be forced to migrate because of technological unemployment, climate change and war. But where can they go?

I argue here that unregulated automation poses the greatest danger for explosive population movements, followed by climate change and war.

Towards the end of the article, I will mention whether realistic solutions to this are within reach.

In this little article, I argue that veganism presents a hopeful, optimistic worldview.

The omni worldview, by contrast, when properly looked at, is an extremely pessimistic, irremediably cruel one!

I am aware of three areas in which utilitarian thought has had a great impact:

Animal rights: we nowadays have cruelty-free cosmetics, some countries are reforming farming practices or banning very cruel ones, veganism is a hot topic. The work of utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer has been very influential in all this.

Social progress: it is my understanding that the work & political involvement of John Stuart Mill have greatly influenced policies in the UK of 150 yrs ago, improving women's rights, among others.

Effective altruism: although not be conflated, utilitarian thought is very important for this movement, that has had real life impact on quite a lot of people.

Do examples such as these prove that utilitarianism has influenced history profoundly? Or rather that individuals (Singer, Mill) who happened to be utilitarians are to be credited for those developments?

Is there something important missing from this list?

Hello,

Moral aggregation is one of the most important concepts in Consequentialist ethical theories. It means that we can we sum the benefits and losses across individuals and judge rightness by the net balance.

There are quite a lot of arguments against it, but perhaps the most interesting one is John M. Taurek's. He just ‘’cannot accept this view’’ that numbers count in moral decisions. He argues that humans are not objects – it is difficult to see in what meaningful sense we can we can bundle individuals morally. He would rather toss a coin and let fate decide, instead of making choices himself.

Other authors argues that moral aggregation does not respect the separation of persons and can encourage wrong behaviours in the pursuit of trying to help the greater number.

On the other side, Alastair Norcross argues that aggregation is simply the best (or least bad) option both from a deontic and axiological point of view.

So then, what are some other good arguments for moral aggregation?

(PS, as per Norcross, Axiology is the study of value. It is concerned with theories of the good, and what makes for a good state of affairs. Deontology is the study of duty and is concerned with questions about what choices are required, forbidden, or permitted.)