it does sounds generally fucked up

you could use the more 'technical' term sexual assault

Not sure you want stray cat. You never know where they've been

Good call. Way easier to market than normal cats even

Vegan cats should eat the people making them go vegan. It would be way healthier for them

Interesting discussion, but I have a couple of questions about the consequences: what is the criteria for a

good consequence vs a bad consequence?

And how would you rank them?

Would it be fair to say that if you were operating in a purely consequentialist model, that the ranking in preference of consequences would be a set of principles? For example, killing someone would be a worse consequence than property damage

So I would still consider those to be principles, not just an approximation thereof.

Self interest is your principle. Still a principle.

then you're referring to a different sense of principle than I am

Could it be that the 'putting principle over consequences' that you were talking about earlier is just a different ranking order of the consequences in question? It doesn't seem to require post-moral principles to me

Sure, you can do that and make those claims. But you can also defend the same action from a consequentialist perspective, and those are different frameworks

Just because we are imperfect evaluative entities doesn't mean that which we are evaluating can't be a ground truth. It is possible to change evaluations of a given action without changing the ranking of the different consequences

Or, from an empirical consequentialist perspective, it means that we should allow people to try different principles, and see what happens

I don't disagree with that point

that's probably one of the functions of religious institutions

true

heh, depends on the cost of figuring out those edge cases vs the benefit of solving them

I agree on that point. And with that, I'm off to bed. Good night.