Ultimately these are the rocks upon which any materialist outlook gets wrecked. Utilitarianism is a woolly viewpoint that feels good to tout but falls apart under examination. Seder didn't want to tie himself to it but said nothing that differentiates his moral basis from utilitarianism. It boils down to 'just do what's bestest for the mostest' - well what does that mean? That which will leave most people happy? Completely unquantifiable. Most healthy? Hello last 5 years; anyone empowered by a certain policy will rig stats and metrics to make that policy seem like the most healthy option. Most people alive? See above, even mortality figures can be queered, hidden and straight up ignored, plus now you've skipped over the issue of quality-of-life and overcrowding is on the table. A pure mathematical system of making society moral is a childish pipe dream wide open to abuse, as mythical as genetic impulses making us 'moral'.

Seder didn't even get into issues as complex as that, he tried to reach for 'well people vote and decide what's right' (ie. moral), meaning morality is just a movable feast that changes every few years, subject to propaganda and electioneering, and the moral framework you end up with is derived from nothing other than the messy system of laws you're left with over centuries. Which is fine if you believe that and are content with it, but at that stage it's pointless to pretend you have any greater vision for a nation other than a nihilistic morass, and you will get trampled in argument by anyone whose morals proceed from something timeless and intangible. And obviously he got shot down in the next sentence when he revealed it wouldn't be moral any more if people voted for something he didn't like.

Ultimately these are the rocks upon which any materialist outlook gets wrecked. Utilitarianism is a woolly viewpoint that feels good to tout but falls apart under examination. Seder didn't want to tie himself to it but said nothing that differentiates his moral basis from utilitarianism. It boils down to 'just do what's bestest for the mostest' - well what does that mean? That which will leave most people happy? Completely unquantifiable. Most healthy? Hello last 5 years; anyone empowered by a certain policy will rig stats and metrics to make that policy seem like the most healthy option. Most people alive? See above, even mortality figures can be queered, hidden and straight up ignored, plus now you've skipped over the issue of quality-of-life and overcrowding is on the table. A pure mathematical system of making society moral is a childish pipe dream wide open to abuse, as mythical as genetic impulses making us 'moral'.

Seder didn't even get into issues as complex as that, he tried to reach for 'well people vote and decide what's right' (ie. moral), meaning morality is just a movable feast that changes every few years, subject to propaganda and electioneering, and the moral framework you end up with is derived from nothing other than the messy system of laws you're left with over centuries. Which is fine if you believe that and are content with it, but at that stage it's pointless to pretend you have any greater vision for a nation other than a nihilistic morass, and you will get trampled by anyone whose moral argument proceeds from something timeless and intangible. And obviously he got shot down in the next sentence when he revealed it wouldn't be moral any more if people voted for something he didn't like.

Ultimately these are the rocks upon which any materialist outlook gets wrecked. Utilitarianism is a woolly viewpoint that feels good to tout but falls apart under examination. Seder didn't want to tie himself to it but said nothing that differentiates his moral basis from utilitarianism. It boils down to 'just do what's bestest for the mostest' - well what does that mean? That which will leave most people happy? Completely unquantifiable. Most healthy? Hello last 5 years; anyone empowered by a certain policy will rig stats and metrics to make that policy seem like the most healthy option. Most people alive? See above, even mortality figures can be queered, hidden and straight up ignored, plus now you've skipped over the issue of quality-of-life and overcrowding is on the table. A pure mathematical system of making society moral is a childish pipe dream wide open to abuse, as mythical as genetic impulses making us 'moral'.

Seder didn't even get into issues as complex as that, he tried to reach for 'well people vote and decide what's right' (ie. moral), meaning morality is just a movable feast that changes every few years, subject to propaganda and electioneering, and the moral framework you end up with is derived from nothing other than the messy system of laws you're left with over centuries. Which is fine if you believe that and are content with it, but at that stage it's pointless to pretend you have any greater vision for society other than a nihilistic morass, and you will get trampled by anyone whose moral argument proceeds from something timeless and intangible. And obviously he got shot down in the next sentence when he revealed it wouldn't be moral any more if people voted for something he didn't like.