Suppose that humans’ aggregate utility function includes both path-independent (“ends”) terms, and path-dependent (“means”) terms.
A (pseudo) deontologist in this scenario is someone who is concerned that all this talk about “achieving the best possible state of affairs” means that the path-dependent terms may be being neglected.
If you think about it, any fixed “state of affairs” is undesirable, simply because it is FIXED. I don’t know for sure, but I think almost everything that you value is actually a path unfolding in time—possibilities might include: falling in love, learning something new, freedom/self-determination, growth and change.
How about this formulation:
Suppose that humans’ aggregate utility function includes both path-independent (“ends”) terms, and path-dependent (“means”) terms.
A (pseudo) deontologist in this scenario is someone who is concerned that all this talk about “achieving the best possible state of affairs” means that the path-dependent terms may be being neglected.
If you think about it, any fixed “state of affairs” is undesirable, simply because it is FIXED. I don’t know for sure, but I think almost everything that you value is actually a path unfolding in time—possibilities might include: falling in love, learning something new, freedom/self-determination, growth and change.