Hide table of contents

I have just published a book version of my essay collection titled Minimalist Axiologies: Alternatives to ‘Good Minus Bad’ Views of Value. You can now read it in your format of choice, including paperbackfree Kindle, or free paperback PDF. You can also download a free EPUB version from Smashwords or the Center for Reducing Suffering (CRS) website.

To briefly explain what the book is about, below are some blurbs, the Preface, and an abridged Table of Contents.

 

Blurbs

“Teo Ajantaival’s new book is an important, original, and tremendously valuable contribution to value theory, and a badly needed corrective to alternative theories that assume that moral goods and bads are simply additive. Even those who, in the end, may have reservations about a thoroughgoing ‘minimalist’ theory of value will benefit from Ajantaival’s careful and persuasive presentation of this under-appreciated alternative.”

— Clark Wolf, Director of Bioethics, Professor of Philosophy, Iowa State University

“The idea that happiness and suffering have similar value, just with opposite signs, is so intuitive that it is often accepted without question. Only when we think more deeply about the meaning of intrinsic value does this intuition unravel – and along with it, the flawed notion that extreme suffering is always tolerable if there is enough bliss to compensate for it. In this volume, Teo Ajantaival strings together six standalone essays on what he terms “minimalist” theories of value, describing a range of views from philosophers who reject the “plus-minus” notion of value. A welcome contribution to the field of ethics, and to the rational justification for giving suffering the prominence it deserves.”

— Jonathan Leighton, Executive Director of the Organisation for the Prevention of Intense Suffering (OPIS), author of The Battle for Compassion and The Tango of Ethics

 

Preface

Can suffering be counterbalanced by the creation of other things?

Our answer to this question depends on how we think about the notion of positive value.

In this book, I explore ethical views that reject the idea of intrinsic positive value, and which instead understand positive value in relational terms. Previously, these views have been called purely negative or purely suffering-focused views, and they often have roots in Buddhist or Epicurean philosophy. As a broad category of views, I call them minimalist views. The term “minimalist axiologies” specifically refers to minimalist views of value: views that essentially say “the less this, the better”. Overall, I aim to highlight how these views are compatible with sensible and nuanced notions of positive value, wellbeing, and lives worth living.

A key point throughout the book is that many of our seemingly intrinsic positive values can be considered valuable thanks to their helpful roles for reducing problems such as involuntary suffering. Thus, minimalist views are more compatible with our everyday intuitions about positive value than is usually recognized.

This book is a collection of six essays that have previously been published online. Each of the essays is a standalone piece, and they can be read in any order depending on the reader’s interests. So if you are interested in a specific topic, it makes sense to just read one or two essays, or even to just skim the book for new points or references. At the same time, the six essays all complement each other, and together they provide a more cohesive picture.

Since I wanted to keep the essays readable as standalone pieces, the book includes significant repetition of key points and definitions between chapters. Additionally, many core points are repeated even within the same chapters. This is partly because in my 13 years of following discussions on these topics, I have found that those key points are often missed and rarely pieced together. Thus, it seems useful to highlight how the core points and pieces relate to each other, so that we can better see these views in a more complete way.

I will admit upfront that the book is not for everyone. The style is often concise, intended to quickly cover a lot of ground at a high level. To fill the gaps, the book is densely referenced with footnotes that point to further reading. The content is oriented toward people who have some existing interest in topics such as philosophy of wellbeing, normative ethics, or value theory. As such, the book may not be a suitable first introduction to these fields, but it can complement existing introductions.

I should also clarify that my focus is broader than just a defense of my own views. I present a wide range of minimalist views, not just the views that I endorse most strongly. This is partly because many of the main points I make apply to minimalist views in general, and partly because I wish to convey the diversity of minimalist views.

Thus, the book is perhaps better seen as an introduction to and defense of minimalist views more broadly, and not necessarily a defense of any specific minimalist view. My own current view is a consequentialist, welfarist, and experience-focused view, with a priority to the prevention of unbearable suffering. Yet there are many minimalist views that do not accept any of these stances, as will be illustrated in the book. Again, what unites all these views is their rejection of the idea of intrinsic positive value whose creation could by itself counterbalance suffering elsewhere.

The book does not seek to present any novel theory of wellbeing, morality, or value. However, I believe that the book offers many new angles from which minimalist views can be approached in productive ways. My hope is that it will catalyze further reflection on fundamental values, help people understand minimalist views better, and perhaps even help resolve some of the deep conflicts that we may experience between seemingly opposed values.

All of the essays are a result of my work for the Center for Reducing Suffering (CRS), a nonprofit organization devoted to reducing suffering. The essays have benefited from the close attention of my editor and CRS colleague Magnus Vinding, to whom I also directly owe a dozen of the paragraphs in the book. I am also grateful to the donors of CRS who made this work possible.

 

Contents

Part I: Varieties of Minimalist Views

 

1.  Minimalist Views of Wellbeing

1.1  Introduction

1.2  Reasons to Doubt the Offsetting Premise: A Brief Overview

1.3  The Variety of Minimalist Views

Appendix 1:  Expanding the Epicurean Notion of Freedom From All Pain

 

2.  Varieties of Minimalist Moral Views: Against Absurd Acts

2.1  Introduction

2.2  Nonconsequentialist Reasons Against Absurd Acts

2.3  Consequentialist Reasons Against Absurd Acts

 

Part II: Minimalist Views in Theory and Practice

 

3.  Minimalist Axiologies and Positive Lives

3.1  What Is Axiology?

3.2  What Are Minimalist Axiologies?

3.3  How Do Minimalist Views Help Us Make Sense of Population Ethics?

3.4  What Are We Comparing When We Make the Assumption of “All Else Being Equal”?

3.5  What Do These Views Imply in Practice?

3.6  Without the Concept of Intrinsic Positive Value, How Can Life Be Worth Living? A More Complete View

 

4.  Minimalist Extended Very Repugnant Conclusions Are the Least Repugnant

4.1  Are Repugnant Implications Inevitable?

4.2  Comparable XVRCs for Offsetting and Minimalist Views

4.3  Sources of Repugnance

4.4  Comparative Repugnance

4.5  Conclusions

Appendix 4:  Rollercoaster Lives and the Extended Very Repugnant Conclusion (XVRC)

 

5.  Peacefulness, Nonviolence, and Experientialist Minimalism

5.1  Overview and Scope

5.2  The Hypothetical Side: Cessation Versus Creation of an Imperfect World

5.3  The Practical Side: Why We Should Not Seek to Create an Empty World

 

Part III: Positive Roles in the Real World

 

6.  Positive Roles of Life and Experience in Suffering-Focused Ethics

6.1  Introduction

6.2  Possible Misconceptions About Instrumental Value

6.3  Life and Diversity

6.4  Valuable Experiences

 

Chapter Summaries

Recommended Resources

Acknowledgments

References

Notes

Comments8


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Update: I just finished this book. It was as advertised: a concise, technical and sometimes challenging experience of moral philosophy, at the edge of my non-specialist understanding, but I really appreciated it. A couple of really important takeaways for me:

  1. The robustness of minimalist axiologies to various instantiations of the Repugnant Conclusion, especially under (non-sharp) lexicality. 
  2. A willingness to "bite the bullet" in certain cases, in particular the Archimedean minimalist 'Reverse Repugnant Conclusion' (i.e. it's better to add lots of bad lives, to slightly reduce the unbearable suffering of enough other bad lives) and the axiological 'perfection' of an empty world (matched only by one in which all lives are completely untroubled). 
  3. Relatedly, a willingness to "spit the bullet back out" where negative utilitarianism/minimalist views have been maligned, misrepresented or generally underdone, including by high-profile folks within EA whom I don't think have publicly changed their positions. 

Thank you for writing this, Teo, and well done again! I hope to write a longer-form summary of the ideas, both for myself and others, as I think there's a great deal of value here. 

Thank you, that's great to hear!

Just to clarify on #2: To "bite the bullet" in the case of the RRC (Figure 4.7) does not entail reducing unbearable suffering. Instead, it entails reducing mild discomfort for many lives at the cost of adding unbearable suffering for others. When it comes to the question of how to prioritize between mild vs. severe harms, accepting these kinds of (Archimedean) tradeoffs is just one option. As you allude to in #1, the other options include looking into lexical views, such as those that would - all else equal - prioritize the reduction of unbearable suffering over any amount of mild (or wholly bearable) discomfort.

Thanks for correcting me! I've reviewed my notes, and made some additional points to ensure I don't make the mistake again. 

Cool, no problem! I admit that it was often left quite abstract what the different parts of the diagrams symbolize.

I'm really excited to read this, Teo, congratulations on publishing it. 

The term “minimalist axiologies” specifically refers to minimalist views of value: views that essentially say “the less this, the better”.


I wonder, why did you go for the term "minimalist"?
Wouldn't "minimizing axiologies" work better?

I think both terms have their advantages. The same question has actually come up before. Here is what I replied the first time it came up:

I think 'minimalist' does also work [in the other sense as well], because it seems to me that offsetting axiologies add further assumptions on top of those that are entailed by the offsetting and the minimalist axiologies. For example, my series tends to explore welfarist minimalist axiologies that assume only some single disvalue (such as suffering, or craving, or disturbance), with no second value entity that would correspond to a positive counterpart to this first one (cf. Vinding, 2022). By comparison, offsetting axiologies such as classical utilitarianism are arguably dualistic in that they assume two different value entities with opposite signs. And monism is arguably a theoretically desirable feature given the problem of value incommensurability between multiple intrinsic (dis)values.

For me, this aspect of value commensurability and theoretical parsimony is a major reason to favor purely minimalist axiologies over 'negative-leaning' ones. So the descriptor 'minimalist' can refer to minimalism regarding how many fundamental assumptions a theory requires.

I should add that we ultimately decided to reduce the emphasis on value commensurability in this book, because the value commensurability argument for minimalist views was not so centrally relevant here, wasn't laid out in sufficient detail yet, and might work better as its own separate argument at some point. But the book still refers to it in a few places.

Additionally, we reduced the emphasis on monism because many of the book's main points apply just as well to pluralist minimalist views which assume multiple intrinsic disvalues. Relatedly, I think the descriptor 'minimizing' sounds good and makes sense for consequentialist minimalist views in particular, but I imagine it might also sound too married to the kind of optimizing or systematizing mindset that may be typical of consequentialist thinking, at least to some people who might instead favor views like minimalist virtue ethics or minimalist care ethics without making consequentialism the centrally relevant component of their ethical views. (Thus, I suppose that 'minimalist' is a more neutral descriptor of the axiology / value theory part, without [so much] sounding as if a minimalist axiology would necessarily need to be combined with a strongly consequentialist view at the normative level.)

Thanks for the reply.

One of the issue I had with the term minimalist is that it has another meaning. But as you said "the descriptor 'minimalist' can refer to minimalism regarding how many fundamental assumptions a theory requires", so basically the other meaning actually applies.

 

I should add that we ultimately decided to reduce the emphasis on value commensurability in this book, because the value commensurability argument for minimalist views was not so centrally relevant here, wasn't laid out in sufficient detail yet, and might work better as its own separate argument at some point. But the book still refers to it in a few places.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean in this paragraph.
EDIT: now I get it

 

And I agree that the word 'minimizing' might be easily associated with typical consequentialism thinking so it might indeed not be the best.

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
I speak to many entrepreneurial people trying to do a large amount of good by starting a nonprofit organisation. I think this is often an error for four main reasons. 1. Scalability 2. Capital counterfactuals 3. Standards 4. Learning potential 5. Earning to give potential These arguments are most applicable to starting high-growth organisations, such as startups.[1] Scalability There is a lot of capital available for startups, and established mechanisms exist to continue raising funds if the ROI appears high. It seems extremely difficult to operate a nonprofit with a budget of more than $30M per year (e.g., with approximately 150 people), but this is not particularly unusual for for-profit organisations. Capital Counterfactuals I generally believe that value-aligned funders are spending their money reasonably well, while for-profit investors are spending theirs extremely poorly (on altruistic grounds). If you can redirect that funding towards high-altruism value work, you could potentially create a much larger delta between your use of funding and the counterfactual of someone else receiving those funds. You also won’t be reliant on constantly convincing donors to give you money, once you’re generating revenue. Standards Nonprofits have significantly weaker feedback mechanisms compared to for-profits. They are often difficult to evaluate and lack a natural kill function. Few people are going to complain that you provided bad service when it didn’t cost them anything. Most nonprofits are not very ambitious, despite having large moral ambitions. It’s challenging to find talented people willing to accept a substantial pay cut to work with you. For-profits are considerably more likely to create something that people actually want. Learning Potential Most people should be trying to put themselves in a better position to do useful work later on. People often report learning a great deal from working at high-growth companies, building interesting connection
 ·  · 31m read
 · 
James Özden and Sam Glover at Social Change Lab wrote a literature review on protest outcomes[1] as part of a broader investigation[2] on protest effectiveness. The report covers multiple lines of evidence and addresses many relevant questions, but does not say much about the methodological quality of the research. So that's what I'm going to do today. I reviewed the evidence on protest outcomes, focusing only on the highest-quality research, to answer two questions: 1. Do protests work? 2. Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Here's what I found: Do protests work? Highly likely (credence: 90%) in certain contexts, although it's unclear how well the results generalize. [More] Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Yes—the report's core claims are well-supported, although it overstates the strength of some of the evidence. [More] Cross-posted from my website. Introduction This article serves two purposes: First, it analyzes the evidence on protest outcomes. Second, it critically reviews the Social Change Lab literature review. Social Change Lab is not the only group that has reviewed protest effectiveness. I was able to find four literature reviews: 1. Animal Charity Evaluators (2018), Protest Intervention Report. 2. Orazani et al. (2021), Social movement strategy (nonviolent vs. violent) and the garnering of third-party support: A meta-analysis. 3. Social Change Lab – Ozden & Glover (2022), Literature Review: Protest Outcomes. 4. Shuman et al. (2024), When Are Social Protests Effective? The Animal Charity Evaluators review did not include many studies, and did not cite any natural experiments (only one had been published as of 2018). Orazani et al. (2021)[3] is a nice meta-analysis—it finds that when you show people news articles about nonviolent protests, they are more likely to express support for the protesters' cause. But what people say in a lab setting mig