I would suggest to actually read, and try to understand the post?
The papers you link mostly use the notion of ‘consequentializing’ in the sense that you can re-cast many other theories as consequentialist. But often this is almost trivial, if you allow yourself the degree of freedom of ‘changing what’s considered good’ on the consequentialist side (as some of the papers do). For some weird reason, you have a deontic theory prohibiting people to drink blue liquids? Fine, you can represent that in consequentialist terms, by ranking all the words where people drink blue liquids as worse than any word where this does not happen. This has the problem you mention—everything becomes ‘some form of consequentialism’.
This is not what this post is about, and what I’m arguing for goes mostly in a different direction. You basically take consequentialism as “true” and some ordering of good states of world states as given. Next, you notice that the act-based consequentialism is often computationally intractable, for humans, using their brains. (This seem different angle of view than most philosophy papers, which by default ignore the wisdom you get from computational complexity or information theory & physics.)
I would suggest to actually read, and try to understand the post?
The papers you link mostly use the notion of ‘consequentializing’ in the sense that you can re-cast many other theories as consequentialist. But often this is almost trivial, if you allow yourself the degree of freedom of ‘changing what’s considered good’ on the consequentialist side (as some of the papers do). For some weird reason, you have a deontic theory prohibiting people to drink blue liquids? Fine, you can represent that in consequentialist terms, by ranking all the words where people drink blue liquids as worse than any word where this does not happen. This has the problem you mention—everything becomes ‘some form of consequentialism’.
This is not what this post is about, and what I’m arguing for goes mostly in a different direction. You basically take consequentialism as “true” and some ordering of good states of world states as given. Next, you notice that the act-based consequentialism is often computationally intractable, for humans, using their brains. (This seem different angle of view than most philosophy papers, which by default ignore the wisdom you get from computational complexity or information theory & physics.)