For certain values of “right” and “work”, approximations (e.g. Newtonian physics when everything you’re talking about is much slower than light and much larger than an atom) are not “right” but they do “work”.
In this analogy (which IIRC has been made before, including by myself), “pure” consequentialism corresponds to whatever the correct unification of QFT and GR is (it is what’s ultimately right, but it’s unfeasible for humans to directly use it on a daily basis), whereas something consequentialism plus a bunch of quasi-deontological rules corresponds to Newtonian physics (it is not exactly right, but it does work for most practical purposes).
For certain values of “right” and “work”, approximations (e.g. Newtonian physics when everything you’re talking about is much slower than light and much larger than an atom) are not “right” but they do “work”.
So, when dealing with big vices, we should use quantum physics or general relativity?
In this analogy (which IIRC has been made before, including by myself), “pure” consequentialism corresponds to whatever the correct unification of QFT and GR is (it is what’s ultimately right, but it’s unfeasible for humans to directly use it on a daily basis), whereas something consequentialism plus a bunch of quasi-deontological rules corresponds to Newtonian physics (it is not exactly right, but it does work for most practical purposes).