Flash Card Consequentialism - Part 2

This is the short follow up defending consequentialism's basic critiques, where I'll actually expound on its virtues. If you don't know what I'm talking about, check Part 1.

I actually think consequentialism has won out in the twenty-first century more than we give it credit for, and that is a great thing. People still sometimes try to use nebulous defenses or trigger words from time to time when defending their arguments, but in public debate it would be suicide these days not to argue that your side will result in better consequences. I spent a depressing amount of time reading 18th century American literature on slavery last year, and the nods to actual human effects of the peculiar institution were drowned by the argument over whether it was okay in the bible. William Lloyd Garrison, Josiah Priest, Theodore Dwight Weld... Major intellectuals were arguing and publishing best-selling books over how to interpret the bible on this issue. The minor problem is that I agree with Priest, the bible is absolutely fine with chattel slavery as practised in the States. The major problem is that it's the wrong conversation.

I think the benefits of consequentialism are clear when you look at its practitioners. Folks are more likely to change their mind, less likely to fall into partisan lines and, importantly, more likely to appear positively in the windows of history. Once you accept that the only way to analyze an issue is based on the outcomes, you have to start seeking evidence. "What do I think about sex work? Hmm, let me consider the consequences of the actions". In some cases, it doesn't get you anywhere, because it might cot be possible to answer certain important questions ("Does paying a prostitute for sex make a man more, or less misogynistic?"). That said, certain arguments like "No little girl dreams of doing that" become easy to ignore. That has no effect on anyone's life consequences, so its an entirely meaningless statement.

There's more to be said on the subject, but it's all been said before, and better, so I won't bore you with it now. For now, the important point is that whenever I give my opinion of issues or events, the only thing I care about are the consequences. Sometimes vague ideas often lead to good consequences, so I care about concepts like freedom, justice, and equality too. But only if they affect people's waking experiences - equality among rocks is a farce. Some statements point towards real consequences, but overstep by adding an aspect of the divine. "Human life is sacred", "Project X denies them a God-given human right", "We have a sacred duty to value nature". These are often arguments in favour of good things, but not good arguments.

Anyway, keep being excellent to one another, and increasingly keep doing it for the right reasons.