I really enjoyed this post! Over the years I've come to find consequentialism much more plausible, in part, as I've seen others push this shift in perspective.
I can't remember the exact post, but I recall Richard Chappell advocating for a similar sort of change in perspective when thinking about some of the objections Utilitarianism faces. In a lot of the standard objections (Transplant, some trolley cases) a consequentialist view looks much more plausible when you switch from "What should I do in this situation?" to something like "what should I hope happens if I read about this?" or which outcome would I prefer to happen if I wasn't involved. Those ways of thinking about the thought experiment tend to make me think much more about the interests of the moral patients involved.
When is it ok for one human being to kill another human being, and when not?
When is it ok for groups of human beings to set about killing groups of other human beings, and when not?
When is it ok to engage in activity that indirectly, but inevitably, leads to the illness, suffering and death of countless others?
If we can prevent the death of another person, is it ever ok to allow them to perish?
There are, of course, events that are occurring around the world, everywhere, in one form or another, that prompt consideration of these questions.
There are many perpetrators, and many more contribute to harms unwittingly (or perhaps with studied lack of self-reflection), while multitudes are subject to atrocities. None among us can be considered mere bystanders.
My impression is that relatively few devote serious attention to questions of morality in anything more than a rote or superficial manner.
I really enjoyed this post! Over the years I've come to find consequentialism much more plausible, in part, as I've seen others push this shift in perspective.
I can't remember the exact post, but I recall Richard Chappell advocating for a similar sort of change in perspective when thinking about some of the objections Utilitarianism faces. In a lot of the standard objections (Transplant, some trolley cases) a consequentialist view looks much more plausible when you switch from "What should I do in this situation?" to something like "what should I hope happens if I read about this?" or which outcome would I prefer to happen if I wasn't involved. Those ways of thinking about the thought experiment tend to make me think much more about the interests of the moral patients involved.
Dan - thanks for this comment! And yes, I really like Richard's work, and it seems like we have a lot in common in our philosophical orientation.
Jim should first put his own life into order.
When is it ok for one human being to kill another human being, and when not?
When is it ok for groups of human beings to set about killing groups of other human beings, and when not?
When is it ok to engage in activity that indirectly, but inevitably, leads to the illness, suffering and death of countless others?
If we can prevent the death of another person, is it ever ok to allow them to perish?
There are, of course, events that are occurring around the world, everywhere, in one form or another, that prompt consideration of these questions.
There are many perpetrators, and many more contribute to harms unwittingly (or perhaps with studied lack of self-reflection), while multitudes are subject to atrocities. None among us can be considered mere bystanders.
My impression is that relatively few devote serious attention to questions of morality in anything more than a rote or superficial manner.
Perhaps we should consider why this is.