[Serious] Moral Obligations toward Possible Worlds

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm totally convinced that there has been moral progress, but that no moral betterment of man accounts for it.

The world was shittier, by our measures, before we got here, and is less shitty, by our measures, since. I don't think that's us changing, I think that's us changing stuff.

As for consequentialist abolitionism - it's not that you can't find a way to argue against it today, it's that the notion yesterday that some bad now for an ultimate or greater good, or some suffering for some good consequence, is the same idea that robert e lee had, the arguments against it the same that they had at the time.

-and yet.

---

Perhaps an quasi-Epicurean may say "Yes, pleasure is good and suffering is bad. But we prioritize the reduction of pain and suffering. Adding to overall happiness comes second to this." If that was your principle as a utilitarian, would slavery still be permissible?

Yes.  Unequivocally and demonstrably, as some of the very final arguments for slavery were valid utilitarian arguments.  Even if we disagree with the conclusions, we can see that and how they would be true if the contents were true.

I am not familiar enough with utilitarian theory to do legit scholarly work on it. But it's something I'm motivated to do. In the end, I may be wrong... and there is no way to find a strong abolitionist notion within any brand of utilitarianism. But it's important to note that slavery as we know it (and have known it historically) is pretty much forbidden by utilitarianism. Because it creates a large amount of suffering and a trivial amount of happiness.

It isn't forbidden -by utilitarianism, at all.  We're thinking of some other thing when we imagine as much. Referring to some other value or value system.