A lot of consequentialists embrace rules that happen to coincide with intuitions about what the right thing to do, based on virtually no evidence that these rules are actually better or worse for society. The moment you can show me that the rule is actually harmful in any important sense, well, then i will disavow the rule. And so as long as you brace that, that's what is entailed by your consequentialist view, i'm fine with it. But there's one set of consequences you're not conceding.
Sam Harris gets back in the VBW ring for another round on moral responsibility, ethical theories, and the grounds for our obligations to other people. Are we at a genuine stalemate when it comes to blame and desert? Is Tamler a closet consequentialist? Is Sam a closet pluralist? Why is Dave such a big Wagner fan? Plus, Twitter shaming: what is it good for? Settle in, get comfortable, pour yourself a drink, you’re in for the long haul on this one.
Links
Special Guest: Sam Harris.
Support Very Bad Wizards