Moral psychology treats the emotions associated with non-consequentialist decisions. As a utilitarian, he thinks that this is squeamishness and self-indulgence that we need to get over. But if you believe that the very reason that you are feeling those things is that there is something deeply morally wrong, no psychological measure can tease apart whether your arousal levels or brain activation to harm is a result of the moral belief that you have that this is a wrong thing to do or just your squeamishnesses.
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: