The “means” as well as the “ends” are part of the worldstates you have preferences over, though non-timeless talk of “consequences” obscures this.
Totally agree. When I figured this out, everything clicked into place.
So you’re far too quick to get the standard consequentialist norms out of your approach to morality.
I don’t think I’m doing anything hasty. We should care about possible histories of the universe, and nothing else. This follows from basic moral facts that are hard to disagree with.
In a strict sense, we care enough about who does what and how that it can’t be fully thrown out. In a more approximate sense, it gets utterly swamped by other concerns on the big questions (anything involving human life), so that you approach “classical” conseqentialism as your task becomes bigger.
Totally agree. When I figured this out, everything clicked into place.
I don’t think I’m doing anything hasty. We should care about possible histories of the universe, and nothing else. This follows from basic moral facts that are hard to disagree with.
In a strict sense, we care enough about who does what and how that it can’t be fully thrown out. In a more approximate sense, it gets utterly swamped by other concerns on the big questions (anything involving human life), so that you approach “classical” conseqentialism as your task becomes bigger.