Yes, I strongly agree that āobligationā-talk is slippery for utilitarians, and not really a natural fit for the view. I made a similar point in my response to Caplanās Conscience Objection, but alas havenāt had any luck in getting uptake from Caplan on this.
Pretty much! I actually think we can supplement the scalar stuff, e.g. with a satisficing account of obligation/āblameworthiness. But scalar at core, at any rate.
Yes, I strongly agree that āobligationā-talk is slippery for utilitarians, and not really a natural fit for the view. I made a similar point in my response to Caplanās Conscience Objection, but alas havenāt had any luck in getting uptake from Caplan on this.
In summary, utilitarians should be āscalar utilitariansā, right? Or is that too specific?
Pretty much! I actually think we can supplement the scalar stuff, e.g. with a satisficing account of obligation/āblameworthiness. But scalar at core, at any rate.