Are you familiar with scalar consequentialism? That’s the idea that there’s no arbitrary threshhold of ‘right-ness’ on one side of which an action is right and on the other of which it’s wrong, but that we can at best talk about whether an action is better or worse, according to the relative amounts of value they produce.
I have never heard of this term but I am quite familiar with the idea! I am sympathetic to the position, but feel it too counter-intuitive to suppose that there are no rights or wrongs, or at least that prescribing some rights and wrongs (dos and don’ts) as distinct from things that are merely better or worse is useful.
Are you familiar with scalar consequentialism? That’s the idea that there’s no arbitrary threshhold of ‘right-ness’ on one side of which an action is right and on the other of which it’s wrong, but that we can at best talk about whether an action is better or worse, according to the relative amounts of value they produce.
I have never heard of this term but I am quite familiar with the idea! I am sympathetic to the position, but feel it too counter-intuitive to suppose that there are no rights or wrongs, or at least that prescribing some rights and wrongs (dos and don’ts) as distinct from things that are merely better or worse is useful.