tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post3419196900175016986..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: Bailey on the life extension debateRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-23825769501359608762010-03-19T20:15:16.033+11:002010-03-19T20:15:16.033+11:00i really enjoy all your writing style, very attrac...i really enjoy all your writing style, very attractive,<br />don't quit and also keep posting due to the fact it just very well worth to look through it,<br />excited to look into a lot more of your current content articles, have a good one :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-16857234449066898072010-02-16T02:11:14.767+11:002010-02-16T02:11:14.767+11:00Keep posting stuff like this i really like itKeep posting stuff like this i really like itAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-72784765857897144742010-02-15T10:52:15.272+11:002010-02-15T10:52:15.272+11:00It's ridiculous of me to comment without readi...It's ridiculous of me to comment without reading the article quoted, and worse, I'm not even sure my memory of Singer is correct. But I'm going to comment anyway, 'cos that's how I roll.<br /><br /><i>Singer [...] would advise the deity to create the second world rather than the first.</i><br /><br />As I recall, Singer is a <i>preference</i> utilitarian. When deciding what sort of world to create, no-one actually exists yet, and so there are no preferences to satisfy. As a result, I imagine Singer would agree with you, as quoted:<br /><br /><i>“what we value…is that whatever actual lives come into existence should go well.”</i><br /><br />Upshot being, I suspect he'd prefer the first world over the second.Owenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06153241381781786537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-28933420686611013372010-02-15T08:28:48.025+11:002010-02-15T08:28:48.025+11:00Haven't got around to reading your paper yet, ...Haven't got around to reading your paper yet, Russell - though I will, I will - but as you know, this sort of question is of considerable interest to me. <br /><br />I very much share your rejection of any sort of impersonal, aggregate utilitarianism. Our proper concern is with the actual or predictable interests of actual (in the David Heyd sense) people/ sentient beings. Stuffing the world to bursting with minimally happy people may be the logical conclusion of impersonal maximising consequentialism, but that's all the more reason to reject that model.ColinGavaghannoreply@blogger.com