This seems a bit inaccurate to me in a few ways, but I'm unsure how accurate we want to be here.First, when the entry talks about "consequentialism" it seems to identify it with a decision procedure: "Consequentialists are supposed to estimate all of the effects of their actions, and then add them up appropriately". In the literature, there is usually a distinction made between consequentialism as a criterion of rightness and a decision procedure, and it seems to me like many endorse the latter and not the former.
Secondly, it seems to identify consequentialism with act-consequentialism, because it only refers to consequences of individual actions as the criterion for evaluation.
I think we should have an entry on something like this, so I grabbed the related EA Concepts title and text.
But maybe the entry should be called just Naive consequentialism, or maybe just Sophisticated consequentialism or something else.
Cool. There are a number of existing or projected entries with names of the form 'x vs. y', such as 'criteria of rightness vs. decision procedures', 'broad vs. narrow interventions', 'near vs. far thinking', etc. Alternative forms for these entries are 'x versus y' and 'x and y' (e.g. 'broad versus narrow interventions' and 'broad and narrow interventions', respectively). In addition, sometimes using just one of these terms may be most appropriate, though I don't think this is always the case. I don't have a clear preference for one form over the others, but I do think we should follow one form consistently. Thoughts?
Some quick thoughts:
Cool, that all seems sensible. I'll update the guide to reflect this.