i think it's implied by the basics of utilitarianism. And what what that does is really treat good and evil as big mounds of dirt. So when a human being, you know, stubs their toe or hiccups or something like that, it's like this little speck of dirt,. But if, i, if i liked, let humanity go on long enough, and just started adding up the stubb toe amounts, eventually i would have a mound of dirt of these stubb toes that is equal to the hollo cost. Nd, i think, indicatestat there's somthing realy deeply wrong with viewing good andevil as essentially big mounds
Neuroscientist Erik Hoel talks about why he is not an "effective altruist" with EconTalk host, Russ Roberts. Hoel argues that the utilitarianism that underlies effective altruism--a movement co-founded by Will MacAskill and Peter Singer--is a poison that inevitably leads to repugnant conclusions and thereby weakens the case for the strongest claims made by effective altruists.