Strictly Consequential

Today’s jet-lagged Ruminant finds Jonah haunted by uncomfortable memories of John Dean as he tries ...

By

Today’s jet-lagged Ruminant finds Jonah haunted by uncomfortable memories of John Dean as he tries to make sense of what the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision means for gun laws in America. Afterward, he offers philosophical musings on an array of topics, including consequentialist ethics, stoplights, and religious edicts. It all ends with a brief reflection on why Jonah is a conservative in the first place. Also, please note that this episode was recorded before the Supreme Court released its decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Jonah will have plenty to say on the subject very soon.

Show Notes:

– The Wednesday G-File

– John Dean’s Worse than Watergate

Start a Free Trial
Get every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism. Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (53)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Andrew

    I really enjoyed this episode, and I think overall your point about making up rules as you go is valid. Maybe this *is* what Singer was saying in the Philosophy Bites episode (I haven't listened to it), but I have *never* heard a utilitarian consequentialist who actually thinks that the individual is wise enough to account for everything, so it felt like something of a straw man argument to say that's what they are saying.

    Also, it's not like consequentialism is the only ethical system that can be manipulated to get the result you want. Jonah uses The Divine Right of Kings as an example of this ... but Divine Right of Kings is explicitly NOT consequentialist. It is a deontological moral law, which doesn't involving looking at the overall consequences of actions. The rule is that the king makes the rules, because God says so. Similarly, it's not like Nazis were consequentialist ... although whether they followed a "virtue" ethic (refine yourself into a Neitchean superman) or a deontological law I am not sure, but they were clearly NOT concerned with "which outcome would overall be best for all people?"

    My favorite perspective on this is Sam Harris' THE MORAL LANDSCAPE, where he makes the point that deontology and virtue ethics both real have the consequences baked into them up front. Try to prove that "truth" is a virtue with no reference to the positive consequences of being honest, and you'll see the problem of trying to bypass consequentialism as the foundation of morality.

    Collapse
  2. Hugh Hansen

    Lot of question-begging in this one.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Bjmckenz

    Sharpshooting you on the "changing red to green lights would be pandemonium" --

    Perhaps you've not heard of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagen_H -- Sweden changed from "drive on the left" to "drive on the right".

    *you would think* that pandemonium would have ensued. Quite the opposite. There was a (temporary) reduction in accidents. The hypothesis is the people were extra careful.

    See also: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/dagen-h-the-day-sweden-switched-sides-of-the-road-photo/2012/02/17/gIQAOwFVKR_blog.html

    Similarly, removing lane markings and stop signs can...help?

    See: https://bigthink.com/the-present/want-less-car-accidents-get-rid-of-traffic-signals-road-signs/

    (I heard about this long ago -- messes with your head)

    OK, yuge caveat - You'll never go broke betting against pandemonium in Sweden!

    I can't justify it, but I say: Hayek for the win!

    Keep up the great work!

    Collapse
  4. Eric Swenson

    I found myself thinking throughout the discussion on Consequentialism. So many of the more rationalia-esque ethics intersect with the issue mentioned that any given individual needs to be in the position to judge the goodness of the effect.

    "So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate"

    The more I look into Genesis, the more that I am developing an appreciation for how it lays out so many of the issues that people tend to run headlong into. I am certain that if Singer, Russell, Tyson, or so many others were put in that situation they would have an unwavering faith in their own ability to judge the quality of the fruit of the tree. I actually prefer to give Eve credit that she was an intelligent and thoughtful woman, and that her observations were completely justifiable. All they require is that she start form the premise that the thing that God Almighty had told her was not true.

    Collapse
  5. Derek Drizin

    The rambling is a feature for me 👍

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Pat @ Tavi Hall

    Jonah, late listening, but you explanation on Bruen was great. Clear and makes sense.

    Collapse
  7. Jack Webster

    I finally listened to that GLoP pod and I had to return here just to note that it ended in the funniest failed intervention I have thus far heard. I doubt JPod will acquiesce to his podcast becoming a symposium (valiantly though Noah may try).

    Collapse
  8. callmeCal

    Jonah, I would like to see you have Chuck Marohn of Strong Towns on your podcast. I think he has some interesting insights into some of the issues plaguing American cities brought on by the way cities have been designed as well as some interesting insights on the incentives brought on by federal regulations and subsidies. Here is a link to him speaking to The American Conservative: https://youtu.be/rKcWpbjuyhA

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Jason Gibson

    I totally love the dives on philosophy. I look forward to the direction you will take your next book destined to be underrated by the masses

    Collapse
  10. John Alsdorf

    Your long and perceptive discussion of Singer's Consequentialism brought to mind (over and over) the reaction I had to Joseph Fletcher's book "Situation Ethics"--first published in 1966. My reaction to each of the illustrative situations in his book was very much what you talked of in the podcast: somehow the subject at the center of the situation, the decision maker, always ended up "in the clear" or "being on the side of" whatever was "the greater good for the greater number." How convenient. Not that some of the decisions weren't fraught, but in toto it sure looked like fancy rationalization of what, in the final analysis, served the decision maker.

    Collapse
Load More