You're listening to, atheistically speaking. Oh, Well, there are things to say.

First, I think. Well, there are things to say.

First, I think we could go back and forth all day

and for the better part of a few centuries,

as I'm sure philosophers have,

about what we're doing when we're trying to make these decisions

if we're ultimately looking at consequences or even the point I made before that I'm still

worried has not really been addressed is when you're trying to justify a right or a duty in

Deontology or virtue ethics or whatever, how are you justifying that?

Like what is the process? I'm not a philosopher. How does that work?

How do you... Let's put it this way. If there's no limit on consequentialism, we say it's all about

consequences, produce the best outcome.

This leads us to just keep piling it high, right?

And this could lead us to that pile of hundreds of billions of people

who have lives that are barely worth living.

But when you add it all together, right?

It's a better world than our current world

where everybody is happy as possible.

If you don't put a limit, on the consequences you may find yourself doing

things like sacrificing innocence and the worry is that this violates really basic

moral intuitions that we have so it's not that we ignore consequences not the

consequences don't matter, nor is it that well-being doesn't matter.

...