With the twin caveats that I am not an academic philosopher and of course I don't know how this will intersect with your own vision of what you want this book to do, my attention was caught by your initial promotion of telic arguments at the beginning, and your claim at the end that "If, as I’ve argued throughout the book, deontic verdic…
With the twin caveats that I am not an academic philosopher and of course I don't know how this will intersect with your own vision of what you want this book to do, my attention was caught by your initial promotion of telic arguments at the beginning, and your claim at the end that "If, as I’ve argued throughout the book, deontic verdicts are less central to ethics than telic ones, it stands to reason that intuitions about deontic verdicts should play less of a role in reflective equilibrium than intuitions about telic verdicts. When we focus more on the latter, consequentialism becomes almost irresistible."
Because your promotion of a telic view of ethics is a new deeper standard, it seems to me that there is a risk that it could merge somewhat with your own more specific ethics in unnecessary ways. There is a risk that your "telic view" might have been phrased in such a way as to sneak a link to consequentialism in by the back door.
I can easily imagine people who agree that ethics should focus on the question "What matters?" but who would not find as a result that consequentialism becomes irresistible. The first and most obvious example that comes to mind is that of Christian-adjacent theism. Consider this rough paraphrase of Mark 12:30-31. "Firstly, love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind and all your strength. Secondly, love your neighbour as yourself." Many Christians would take this as an articulation from Jesus about the question "What matters?" The answer is that God matters firstly, and that other human beings matter secondly.
For the most part, Christians who say this do not mean that God "matters" in a consequentialist fashion. It is not that we should care about God in order that we may pay more attention to the effect that our actions will have upon the state of God! It is simply that God is worth caring about, regardless of whether we can actually have any effect on God.
If you think of "X matters" as meaning "we should care about the consequences of our actions in so far as they affect X," then a telic view would indeed lead to consequentialism! But this is not the only kind of "mattering" that, uh, matters to people.
I like the idea of your telic view very much. I think it contains insights that are worthwhile, regardless of whether they lead to consequentialism. I will leave it to you to decide whether the potential objection that I have raised has any bearing on what you are actually trying to do, here. Best wishes for your book!
I definitely don't think the telic approach *by itself* entails consequentialism (I'm at pains in Part I to argue that it's compatible with the full range of moral theories). It's more that it enables the further arguments developed in the later parts of the book, which aim to show that consequentialism coheres much better with important moral intuitions than do rival views.
I am only interested in philosophy.. I notice that the standard of right and wrong.. changes in nature from the individual.. to the group.. For example, Nietzsche interprets morality in a subjective way, whether it is him.. or an ethnic group, but the truth is that this contradicts sociology.. I think that the subject should be raised from the point of view of society or human groups.. and from an individual point of view.. Sorry for the length.. and my bad language. And I encourage you to do this project.. I personally notice the confusion of definitions of right and wrong, and it is also related to the fact that objectivity is impossible..
Non-supernaturalist Buddhist here. What you seem to be describing here, I think I'd call a non-experientialist consequentialism. Amount of life lived in line with the Maker's Word is intrinsically valuable, do I get you right?
With the twin caveats that I am not an academic philosopher and of course I don't know how this will intersect with your own vision of what you want this book to do, my attention was caught by your initial promotion of telic arguments at the beginning, and your claim at the end that "If, as I’ve argued throughout the book, deontic verdicts are less central to ethics than telic ones, it stands to reason that intuitions about deontic verdicts should play less of a role in reflective equilibrium than intuitions about telic verdicts. When we focus more on the latter, consequentialism becomes almost irresistible."
Because your promotion of a telic view of ethics is a new deeper standard, it seems to me that there is a risk that it could merge somewhat with your own more specific ethics in unnecessary ways. There is a risk that your "telic view" might have been phrased in such a way as to sneak a link to consequentialism in by the back door.
I can easily imagine people who agree that ethics should focus on the question "What matters?" but who would not find as a result that consequentialism becomes irresistible. The first and most obvious example that comes to mind is that of Christian-adjacent theism. Consider this rough paraphrase of Mark 12:30-31. "Firstly, love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind and all your strength. Secondly, love your neighbour as yourself." Many Christians would take this as an articulation from Jesus about the question "What matters?" The answer is that God matters firstly, and that other human beings matter secondly.
For the most part, Christians who say this do not mean that God "matters" in a consequentialist fashion. It is not that we should care about God in order that we may pay more attention to the effect that our actions will have upon the state of God! It is simply that God is worth caring about, regardless of whether we can actually have any effect on God.
If you think of "X matters" as meaning "we should care about the consequences of our actions in so far as they affect X," then a telic view would indeed lead to consequentialism! But this is not the only kind of "mattering" that, uh, matters to people.
I like the idea of your telic view very much. I think it contains insights that are worthwhile, regardless of whether they lead to consequentialism. I will leave it to you to decide whether the potential objection that I have raised has any bearing on what you are actually trying to do, here. Best wishes for your book!
I definitely don't think the telic approach *by itself* entails consequentialism (I'm at pains in Part I to argue that it's compatible with the full range of moral theories). It's more that it enables the further arguments developed in the later parts of the book, which aim to show that consequentialism coheres much better with important moral intuitions than do rival views.
I am only interested in philosophy.. I notice that the standard of right and wrong.. changes in nature from the individual.. to the group.. For example, Nietzsche interprets morality in a subjective way, whether it is him.. or an ethnic group, but the truth is that this contradicts sociology.. I think that the subject should be raised from the point of view of society or human groups.. and from an individual point of view.. Sorry for the length.. and my bad language. And I encourage you to do this project.. I personally notice the confusion of definitions of right and wrong, and it is also related to the fact that objectivity is impossible..
Non-supernaturalist Buddhist here. What you seem to be describing here, I think I'd call a non-experientialist consequentialism. Amount of life lived in line with the Maker's Word is intrinsically valuable, do I get you right?