What is flakiness? Last week, I surveyed what’s been written about flakiness in this paper, and found that the majority relied on this intuitive notion: Flaking is canceling plans (perhaps at the last minute) without a legitimate excuse. But this does not exhaust our intuitions about flaking. When we decide whether or not to flake,…
What is flakiness? We all have certain intuitions about flakiness, but they are surely imprecise. What are the facts required for someone to have flaked — is it lateness, canceling, or skipping with no notice? How about the normative facts? Is flaking simply “bad,” or do we have more complicated attitudes toward it? Over the last few volumes of this paper, Daily writers have fleshed out their own intuitions on flaking in different ways. To understand flakiness better, let’s start with their thoughts.
If Democrats responded as Republicans did when members of their own party were accused of sexual assault, they would look worse than Republicans. Democrats would be hypocrites, exactly because it’s been Democrats who have largely championed the movement to support victims of sexual assault.
Ethical questions also suffer from vagueness, and in particular the question “when is it okay to kill an organism?” suffers from a vagueness with far higher stakes than the definition of a pile of sand.
Effective altruism has many enemies, and while there are certainly philosophical arguments against it, much of the opposition is not intellectual but visceral.
Most of us have an intuitive inclination to react in ways that we want to characterize as “ethical.” If I see someone being beat up, I’m inclined to think that this ought not happen…My ought, I want intuitively to say, is specifically ethical.