Being a non-consequentialist doesn't commit you to ignoring of consequences, right? It's just different features of a situation will factor into what you think the moral, the morally right thing to do. He says utilitarianism is an idea that because these feelings are part of who you are as a moral being in the first place, and if you're not a moral being, then you wouldn't be a utilitarian because it is a moral theory.
David and Tamler take a break from complaining about psychological studies that measure utilitarianism to complain about the moral theory itself. We talk about one of the most famous critiques of utilitarian theories from Bernard Williams. Does utilitarianism annihilate our integrity--our unity--as people? Would trying to maximize well-being fracture our identities, and swallow up our projects, motivations, and moral convictions--the same convictions that make utilitarianism seem appealing in the first place? Is it ultimately self-defeating as a moral theory?
Plus, we talk about the adventures of Tamler's based step-mom Christina Hoff Sommers' at Lewis and Clark law school. Will David stay woke?
Support Very Bad Wizards
Links: