Gregory Lewis🔸 comments on Ethical offsetting is antithetical to EA

[Gregory Lewis🔸]

I agree with this, and have written similarly here:

There is more that can be said. An objector could turn the screw by offering caveats to the thought experiment (or just sufficient offset) that the harm of killing is genuinely outweighed by the benefits – yet, they insist, doing so would still be wrong...

I think consequentialists should ultimately yield – these are costs to the theory, and the best that can be hoped for is to ameliorate these (one could appeal to saying ones intuitions in a sufficiently caveated case are unreliable may be one approach). It would be remarkable if a moral theory on reflection accorded with all of our moral intuitions all the time. Instead of defending the difficultly defensible, it is perhaps better to appeal that the balance of benefits of costs of consequentialism does better than other theories, notwithstanding its poor performance in these particular cases