In a 2019 debate, Pool brought up the Trolley Problem (and Thanos!) to criticize lesser-evil voting. He's very confused. But we don't need to embrace consequentialism to reject his position.
If intuitionism is correct (the ultimate criterion of a moral principle is whether it is acceptable to us, for whatever is the relevant value of “us”, not some logical test of coherence or economical assumptions), then surely Seder is right to think normative moral and political philosophy is a waste of time. It is premised on a meta-norm of trying to get our first order norms more coherent, but there is no reason to want this or think it is possible.
Sometimes you say “I realize this thing I am doing is distasteful in isolation but it is worth it for the greater cause” and sometimes you say “No cause can be right if it means I have to do this”. Neither reaction can be condemned or applauded outside a real context. If we disagree on which reaction is appropriate, no system of logic is going to resolve it for us.
The only scientific study would be of how we came to have these attitudes - and whatever the answer, it wouldn’t tell us what we should do now. Improvement in our moral ideas comes through mass movements, not the study. And there is no logical way of proving they are improvements - but no need to do so.
All that being said, one advantage of consequences is that it is possible to refer to empirical reasons to modify our assessment of them. So if I am actually arguing against some leftist who refuses to vote for Democrats, I would usually try to appeal to consequences. But I would also say it shows a lack of solidarity and makes you a bourgeois individualist to prefer keeping your hands clean to avoiding giving power to the most reactionary wing of capital
If intuitionism is correct (the ultimate criterion of a moral principle is whether it is acceptable to us, for whatever is the relevant value of “us”, not some logical test of coherence or economical assumptions), then surely Seder is right to think normative moral and political philosophy is a waste of time. It is premised on a meta-norm of trying to get our first order norms more coherent, but there is no reason to want this or think it is possible.
Sometimes you say “I realize this thing I am doing is distasteful in isolation but it is worth it for the greater cause” and sometimes you say “No cause can be right if it means I have to do this”. Neither reaction can be condemned or applauded outside a real context. If we disagree on which reaction is appropriate, no system of logic is going to resolve it for us.
The only scientific study would be of how we came to have these attitudes - and whatever the answer, it wouldn’t tell us what we should do now. Improvement in our moral ideas comes through mass movements, not the study. And there is no logical way of proving they are improvements - but no need to do so.
All that being said, one advantage of consequences is that it is possible to refer to empirical reasons to modify our assessment of them. So if I am actually arguing against some leftist who refuses to vote for Democrats, I would usually try to appeal to consequences. But I would also say it shows a lack of solidarity and makes you a bourgeois individualist to prefer keeping your hands clean to avoiding giving power to the most reactionary wing of capital