Yes, I strongly agree that ‘obligation’-talk is slippery for utilitarians, and not really a natural fit for the view. I made a similar point in my response to Caplan’s Conscience Objection, but alas haven’t 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/blameworthiness. But scalar at core, at any rate.
Yes, I strongly agree that ‘obligation’-talk is slippery for utilitarians, and not really a natural fit for the view. I made a similar point in my response to Caplan’s Conscience Objection, but alas haven’t had any luck in getting uptake from Caplan on this.
In summary, utilitarians should be “scalar utilitarians”, 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/blameworthiness. But scalar at core, at any rate.