I would suggest to consider the more abstract concept of “well-being”, which contains both happiness and freedom. That’s the steel-manned form of the consequentialist`s moral cornerstone.
David Spohr
Karma: 0
I would suggest to consider the more abstract concept of “well-being”, which contains both happiness and freedom. That’s the steel-manned form of the consequentialist`s moral cornerstone.
I think you misunderstand the premise. There is no known absolute “good” or “bad” in his description. There is just the landscape of peaks and valleys which we don’t know the shape of. So the two “goods” you described can be two peaks partially intersecting each other.