It Is Impossible to Maximize Good Consequences.

In my last post I argued that utility monsters, genocide of the less happy, and barely happy multitudes raise problems for the maximization clause of the fundamental definitions of consequentialism. Looking again to those definitions, as standardly propounded, I am going to argue that it is impossible to maximize good consequences – even in the unlikely event that a coherent account can be given of the choice alternatives and their consequences.

The Consequences for Consequentialism of Utility Monsters and Barely Happy Multitudes

The fundamental definition of maximizing consequentialism is that the objectively right action is the action, among available alternatives, that maximizes net good consequences. Do barely happy multitudes and utility monsters mean that consequentialism so understood cannot provide the fundamental guiding principle of morality?

Electoral College Democracy

Some failing arguments in defense of the Electoral College, and a look at two possible steps forward without constitutional amendment. Possible, but not likely.

Deceptive Truth: Kant, Sandel, & Bill Clinton

Occasioned by the suggestion of Sandel that it may sometimes be morally permissible to deceive people, so long as you do so without lying, I here examine such alleged truths as “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” After setting up the issues in Section 1, in Sections 2-4 I examine questions of language, communication, and truthfulness in assessing whether candidate deceptive truths really are true. These sections require little if any prior familiarity in the area. The fifth section, however, probably will be hard to follow unless you have some acquaintance with Kant’s ethics. Lacking that, you still may well be able to follow the Sections 6-8, and the final section on the Clinton impeachment has no prerequisites.