#consequentialism

[the-sad-tree]

Consequentialism in The Hunger Games

In the 74th Hunger Games, it's been speculated that Peeta wanted Katniss to live not because he loved her so much, but because more people would be devasted if she died. He thought her life was worth more than his.

Katniss decided to keep "faking" her love for Peeta during the Victory Tour despite it hurting him because she didn't want a rebellion. She was thinking of how it would affect all of Panem and didn't want to upset the "peace".

Katniss' justification for wanting Peeta to live through the Third Quarter Quell was that she was already slated for death and that Peeta might still be able to have a happy life. So instead of piling the resources onto her so that she survives the arena and dies from an "accident" arranged by the Capitol, Peeta survives and lives a happy life.

In MockingJay, Gale justified burying the Nut by considering the entirety of District 2 an enemy. He thought it would lead to the greatest advantage for the rebellion, more like a "rip the bandaid off fast" kind of thing. Let's not talk about his bombs targeting first responders.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. I've often wondered whether fewer lives would have been lost if the games had continued and the rebellion never happened. It just felt like the losses from the rebellion were so great compared to what was gained, at least before the epilogue.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of the Greater Good

The philosophy of the greater good explores the ethical idea that actions should aim to benefit the largest number of people, even if they come at a cost to some individuals. It's a concept deeply tied to utilitarianism but also appears in many religious, political, and cultural traditions.

Key Philosophical Foundations:

1. Utilitarianism

Developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, utilitarianism is the most well-known articulation of the greater good. It argues that morally right actions are those that maximize happiness or utility for the greatest number.

Act utilitarianism looks at the consequences of individual actions, while rule utilitarianism considers the consequences of following general rules.

2. Sacrifice and Moral Trade-offs

The greater good often raises questions about the morality of sacrifice: Should some suffer so that others may benefit? Thinkers have debated whether this justifies violating individual rights for collective benefit.

3. Deontological Critiques

Philosophers like Immanuel Kant oppose the idea of the greater good when it conflicts with moral duties or human dignity. According to deontology, some actions (like lying or harming the innocent) are never justified, regardless of their outcomes.

4. Social Contract Theory

In political philosophy, the greater good is often invoked in arguments about governance, justice, and law. Rousseau, for example, emphasized the “general will,” where individual interests align with the collective good.

5. Medical and Scientific Ethics

In bioethics and public health, decisions about limited resources (e.g., organ distribution, vaccine access) are made using versions of greater good reasoning—raising complex ethical dilemmas.

6. Criticisms and Limits

Tyranny of the majority: The idea that majority benefit can lead to minority oppression.

Slippery slope: Once harm is allowed for the greater good, boundaries can erode.

Measuring good: Whose good counts, and how is it quantified?

Summary:

The philosophy of the greater good navigates the tension between individual rights and collective welfare. It challenges us to think ethically about power, sacrifice, justice, and moral responsibility—especially in scenarios where not everyone can win.

[weevil-mastermind]

There’s a weird thing about consequentialist ethics where the morality of an action is dependent on how people respond to it.

[probablyasocialecologist]

Longtermism calls on us to safeguard humanity’s future in a manner that both diverts attention from current misery and leaves harmful socioeconomic structures critically unexamined. As a movement, it has enjoyed stunning financial success and clout. But its success is not due to the quality of its conception of morality, which builds questionably on EA’s. Rather, it is due to longtermism’s compatibility with the very socioeconomic arrangements that have led us to the brink of the kinds of catastrophes it claims to be staving off. At issue is not only an especially dangerous, future-facing variation on ideologies, like EA, that thwart struggles for liberating change with suggestions of the cure-all properties of existing economic tools. It is a variation lacking any plausible rationale, since many of these struggles have long contributed to the area longtermism wrongly represents as its innovation – fighting for a just and livable future.

[existentialcatholic]

The above quote from Martin Luther King, Jr., points out an alarming trend in human behavior: specifically, that matters of right and wrong have become a matter of majority rule. This phenomenon is natural. Psychological studies have shown that the existence of litter in an environment predicts the littering of other individuals. In a generation of AI use, students have increasingly used AI to plagiarize assignments and are more likely to do so when they know that other students are doing it. On the most extreme level, media portrayals of abortions as an option frequently needed and taken can influence the media consumer to agree that abortions should remain widely available.

Catholic theology defies the societal trend of morality becoming a decision of the majority. As Catholics, we maintain that moral absolutes exist and rely on these absolutes, as given to us in the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) and analyzed further in Church teachings. Moral absolutes specify “intrinsically evil acts” and point to what is right by indicating what actions are wrong. In this post, I will answer why moral absolutes are important for Catholic theology. I will also examine why some people reject the idea of moral absolutes, and why this rejection cannot be maintained consistently.

Why are moral absolutes important for Catholic morality and why do some people reject the idea of moral absolutes?

Catholic theology recognizes activity as “morally good when it attests to and expresses the voluntary ordering of the person to his ultimate end and the conformity of a concrete action with the human good as it is acknowledged in its truth by reason” (VS 72). This quote from Veritatis Splendor tells us several features of the Catholic understanding of morality. First, moral good is voluntary. Without the freedom to act, there is no morality. Second, moral good is aligned with a person’s ultimate end. In Catholicism, we understand this ultimate end to be union with G-d. Moral actions contribute to our journey toward this end. Third, moral good consists in concrete actions. In other words, morality is a lived experience and not just an intellectual exercise. Fourth, moral good exists in conformity with the value of reason. When we perform morally good actions, our reason and our will align in pursuit of the good. With a well-formed reason, doing the good makes sense.

In addition to recognizing, encouraging, and applauding morally good activity, Catholic theology recognizes and condemns morally bad activity through moral absolutes. Moral absolutes are one aspect of the Catholic moral framework that contribute to moral good. They provide negative definitions of the tenets of Catholic morality; that is, they tell us what is right by telling us what not to do in order to achieve the right and the good. Though negative, moral absolutes “allow human persons to keep themselves open to be fully the beings they are meant to be” (May, 162).

Moral Absolutes and Catholic Morality

May defines moral absolutes as “moral norms identifying certain types of action, which are possible objects of human choice, as always morally bad, and specifying these types of action without employing in their description any morally evaluative terms” (May, 142). They prohibit “acts which, per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object” (RP, 17). Moral absolutes are important for Catholic morality because all judgments require a standard, and moral absolutes provide a standard for the judgments of Catholic morality. Moreover, the absolutes of Catholic morality have a Divine source, which provides secure authority for its teachings.

Catholic theology has moral absolutes because moral absolutes protect and promote what is good. They do so because moral absolutes function as standards of how failure to achieve moral good looks. Like danger signs, they tell us which actions and spiritual “places” or states to avoid. According to May, “They remind us that some kinds of human choices and actions, although responsive to some aspects of human good, make us persons whose hearts are closed to the full range of human goods and to the persons in whom these goods are meant to exist” (May, 162).

Conscience relies on the existence of moral absolutes. One definition of conscience is “one’s personal awareness of basic moral principles or truths” (May, 59). This awareness, called synderesis in the medieval tradition, refers to “our habitual awareness of the first principles of practical reasoning and of morality” (May, 59). Synderesis requires that principles of practical reasoning and morality exist in the first place. However, another level of conscience exists which refers to “mode of self-awareness whereby we are aware of ourselves as moral beings, summoned to give to ourselves the dignity to which we are called as intelligent and free beings” (May, 60). On this level as well, which tradition has referred to as conscientia, we require moral absolutes. Moral absolutes benefit conscientia by showing the standard to which we are called. Avoid lying to others or harming them. Do not dishonor G-d or one’s neighbor.

On the Rejection of Moral Absolutes

People who reject moral absolutes may fall into the camp of teleological ethical theory, which includes proportionalism and consequentialism. The proportionalist would weigh the “good” and “bad” effects of a moral choice and judge as right any moral decision that the actor perceived as producing more “good” effects than “bad.” The consequentialist would judge an act as right that had the relatively “best” consequences, no matter how one reached those consequences. Both of these moral theologies are called “teleological” because proponents place all focus and emphasis on the end, or telos, of human action.

A charitable proposal for why people may reject moral absolutes is because they get lost in the details of moral situations. For instance, committing credit card fraud is wrong. However, the reasons that one commits it or the details of why someone makes the decision could lead someone to call the action right. One could easily identify as wrong someone who commits credit card fraud to buy the newest smartphone. Committing said fraud to feed oneself or one’s children is still wrong, but the proportionalist would argue that the good of feeding someone outweighs the wrong of credit card fraud. The consequentialist would argue that the good end justifies the evil means.

To look at it from a simpler point of view, people may reject moral absolutes because they want to rationalize actions that are wrong. For instance, I used to be pro-choice. I took a teological viewpoint and argued that allowing free access to abortion would produce the most beneficial consequences for those who were “in need” of abortion, be it due to financial, health, or relational reasons. As a pro-choicer, I argued erroneously that taking the life of an infant through abortion was a justifiable means to avoiding poverty, the potential negative health consequences of pregnancy, and the relational vulnerability of being a mother who had to take care of a newborn (especially for survivors of rape and incest). I rightly understood that extending permission to abort these pregnancies meant doing so for potentially all pregnancies, as well as all reasons to end those pregnancies. Even as the examples in my arguments did not necessarily require abortions, I knew that the emotional charge of the examples gave me the best chance at convincing someone to allow exceptions. As soon as I got someone to allow those exceptions, I would accuse the person of opposing abortion situationally, not on principle, and argue that there was no longer reason to restrict abortion on principle. I knew and know that abortion is wrong, but I went through this exercise in mental gymnastics to convince myself that it was excusable. Now, however, I know and acknowledge the constancy of moral absolutes.

Conclusion

As I stated above, moral absolutes are necessary for this framework of morality because absolutes give the judgments of Catholic morality their standard. As Canavan states, “if there are no absolutes, reasoning collapses into incoherence and yields no conclusions” (Canavan, 93). Without the standard of morality that the Decalogue provides, the claims of Catholic morality hold no more sway than the teachings of other ethical systems. The high standards set by Catholic morality, which we can only reach with the help of grace, would repel many from the ethical system. However, with the established moral absolutes that Catholic morality sets forward, the individual can value and strive to maintain the standards for behavior that the framework sets.

Moral absolutes help us understand our ultimate end of union with G-d in heaven. For one to achieve this union with our Creator, it stands to reason that one must exist in accordance with His plan. After all, the only way to become fit for union with Him is to become like Him. Recognizing the validity of moral absolutes is a vital part of living in accordance with G-d’s plan because appreciating and respecting His work in the universe involves acknowledging and following the laws that He put in place for its functioning. These laws are explained well in the Decalogue but spread out to further applications and specifications elsewhere in Church teaching.

-Esther

---

Canavan, Francis. “A Horror of the Absolute.” The Human Life Review 23, no. 1 (Winter 1997): 91-97.

John Paul II. Reconciliation and Penance. December 2, 1984. The Holy See. https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia.html.

John Paul II. Veritatis Splendor. August 6, 1993. The Holy See. https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html.

May, William E. An Introduction to Moral Theology. Second edition. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1994.

[transmascxielian]

i do think studying consequentialist philosophy was a bit of a lifeline for my obsessions and intrusive thoughts. like every time i think i'm an awful person with disgusting thoughts the ghost of john stuart mill floats up to me and says 'the tangible outcomes of your actions are the things with moral value'. idk but it helps

[hecho-a-mano]

sometimes i feel like a lot of virtue and deontological ethics infused takes get a lot of traction in social media and it strikes me as very unhelpful for our political movements. I feel like appeals to emotion can only get you so far. Nothing matters more than achieving the desired goals we've set for our society.

[sophia-epistemia]

yeah so actually i got my answer to that:

pleasure.

mine and everyone's. i'm a Hedonist, in the sense that the value of the world is the amount of pleasure happening over its existence, therefore i have dedicated my life to making more pleasure happen. and in other senses too.

(tho ok practicing the oldest of all the jobs is kind of a trad job but then again i don't get enough work to live off of it and require unemployment money to survive so uh, nuance ig)

but besides that. there's even simpler. what's the purpose of staying alive? well, being alive. living on is its own purpose. (if that's unsatisfying to you, try pleasure. worked for me!)

and, to finally get to an actual retort. what's the purpose of letting me die? would the asker kill me with their hands? action and inaction with the same consequences are morally equivalent!

Not having a traditional job or plans to get an education will have people asking you things like so what is the purpose of you staying alive?

[crowns-of-violets-and-roses]

Once every few months I imagine Alastair Norcross standing on the ramparts of the University of Colorado Boulder declaiming that his morality had transcended our obsolete notions of right and wrong and then cackling madly as lightning flashes in the background

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Praise and Blame

The philosophy of praise and blame explores the ethical, psychological, and social dimensions of attributing moral responsibility to individuals for their actions. Praise and blame are fundamental aspects of moral judgment, where praise is the approval or commendation of a person for their good actions, and blame is the disapproval or criticism of someone for their bad actions. Philosophers investigate the conditions under which praise and blame are justified, the implications of these judgments for moral agency, and their role in shaping human behavior and social norms.

Key Concepts in the Philosophy of Praise and Blame:

Moral Responsibility:

Attribution of Responsibility: Praise and blame are closely tied to the concept of moral responsibility. Philosophers debate what it means to hold someone morally responsible for their actions and under what conditions this is appropriate. This involves questions about free will, intentionality, and knowledge.

Free Will and Determinism: One of the central issues is whether individuals have free will and thus can be justifiably praised or blamed for their actions. If determinism is true, and all actions are the result of prior causes, the basis for moral responsibility—and hence praise and blame—may be called into question.

Conditions for Praise and Blame:

Intentionality: For praise or blame to be appropriate, the action in question typically needs to be intentional. Accidental actions or actions taken under compulsion may not warrant praise or blame in the same way.

Knowledge and Understanding: The agent’s knowledge of the consequences of their actions and their understanding of the moral principles involved are also important. Ignorance or misunderstanding might mitigate blame or enhance praise depending on the circumstances.

Praise:

Recognition of Virtue: Praise is often seen as a way of recognizing and encouraging virtue or morally good behavior. It can reinforce positive actions and promote the development of good character traits.

Social and Psychological Effects: Praise can have significant social and psychological effects, fostering self-esteem and motivating individuals to continue acting in morally commendable ways. It also strengthens social bonds and reinforces communal values.

Blame:

Moral Censure: Blame serves as a form of moral censure, signaling that a person’s actions have violated ethical standards. It can be a way of holding people accountable and deterring future wrongdoing.

Blame and Punishment: In some philosophical traditions, blame is linked to the justification of punishment. If someone is to be blamed for an action, it may be argued that they deserve to be punished in proportion to the harm they have caused.

The Ethics of Praise and Blame:

Fairness and Proportionality: Philosophers debate the fairness of praise and blame, particularly whether they are proportionate to the actions being judged. There is also discussion about whether praise and blame should be distributed equally among all those responsible for a collective action or unequally based on individual contributions.

Moral Luck: The concept of moral luck complicates the ethics of praise and blame, as it raises questions about whether individuals should be praised or blamed for actions influenced by factors beyond their control.

Philosophical Theories:

Consequentialism: In consequentialist ethics, praise and blame are often viewed in terms of their effects on future behavior. Actions that lead to good consequences may be praised to encourage repetition, while those leading to bad outcomes are blamed to discourage them.

Deontological Ethics: In deontological theories, such as Kantian ethics, praise and blame are more focused on the agent’s intentions and adherence to moral duties, regardless of the consequences.

Virtue Ethics: From the perspective of virtue ethics, praise and blame are tools for cultivating virtuous character traits. Praising good actions and blaming bad ones help individuals develop virtues and avoid vices.

Social and Cultural Contexts:

Cultural Relativism: The criteria for praise and blame can vary significantly across cultures. What is considered praiseworthy in one culture might be neutral or even blameworthy in another, leading to questions about the universality of moral standards.

Collective Praise and Blame: In social and political contexts, entire groups or communities may be praised or blamed for collective actions. This raises ethical questions about the fairness of attributing responsibility to individuals for the actions of the group.

Criticisms and Limitations:

Overemphasis on Moral Judgment: Some philosophers argue that too much focus on praise and blame can lead to an overly judgmental society, where individuals are constantly evaluated rather than understood.

Blame and Shame: The relationship between blame and shame is also a topic of discussion, particularly how blame can lead to destructive feelings of shame, which may not contribute to moral improvement.

The philosophy of praise and blame is central to understanding moral responsibility and ethical behavior. These practices play crucial roles in shaping human actions, reinforcing social norms, and cultivating moral character. Philosophical inquiry into praise and blame involves examining the conditions under which they are justified, their ethical implications, and their impact on individuals and society. By exploring these concepts, philosophers aim to illuminate the ways in which moral judgments influence our lives and our relationships with others.

[ask-asexual-crystal-gems]

@galaxy--ace seems to want to discuss morality. I’m not claiming to be any philosophical expert, but consequentialism holds that anything that results in (or may result in?) more harm is immoral.

If a policeman puts a dog in danger, for example, he’s doing something more immoral (if you hold that a dog ain’t got no business getting shot for human constructed problems, that’s unfair to the animal) than if he’s just having it do a relatively tranquil task like drug sniffing.

Now, ofc, philosophically speaking, as I understand it, most religious fundies are operating on some version of deontology. As in, an action in and of itself is bad no matter whether it’s risking or causing more harm or not. To me that’s silly.

(btw the last sentence in your post sounds like an empirical claim, so I’m going to need some citation if I’m going to bore my readers with the textwalls that seem largely irrelevant to the point I’m making. And yeah, OP said nothing about poly relationships, that was a reblogger named WhereSerpentsWalk. That topic necessitates a discussion about STDs and the downplaying that gets done. Which you are also doing. Another reason why I don’t wanna host stuff containing perpetuation of harmful attitudes my blog. No offense. /gen)

So, if putting others in harm’s way is an immoral act (no matter if the dog actually gets shot or not) then risking harm to one partner by pursuing a second or third or fourth potential vector of infection, especially in open poly relationships or even just if you’re having one night stands with multiple people, is immoral towards them.

(and towards everyone else involved as well.)

Consent to that harm isn’t as important as recognizing the notion that you’re consciously choosing to put others in harm’s way.

You’re still free to do it, just like somebody is free to not donate to charity and buy some capitalist whatever doodad while somebody else does a more morally optimal action.

It is suboptimal. Morally.

imho

Religious people make it just about who is good and evil, which is a toddler way of looking at the universe. A more realistic lens is just a sliding scale, a spectrum of morality, and people shouldn’t get butthurt about being factually identified as getting an A- at life instead of an A+. 

People who sleep around, but do safe sex are getting a B. People in open poly relationships probably get a B-. People who sleep around without doing safe sex get an F. Frequency of doing so plays a part in the sliding scale as well. Is this making sense?

This is not even getting into the potential hurt feelings ofc. One survey I recall vaguely said around 50% of people going into one night stands hoped it evolved into something else. That’s a whole lot of playing roulette with other peoples’ hearts if you’re unaffected. As an aro person, I feel it’s my responsibility to point out that if you lean that way, or experience attraction without much romance, just bc the other person puts on a brave face, doesn’t mean your actions haven’t had neg util, as they say in the formal debate circles. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a gender disparity in who came out of it bruised, either.

Lines of thought that seem Normal but are actually rooted in extreme puritanism:

-Seeing the nude human body is inherently traumatic -Sex scenes in art are pointless -Wearing kink-related clothing in public is the similar to performing a sex scene in front of unwilling participants -Depicting female characters expressing sexuality is always degrading -People's sexual fantasies are always an endorsement of the behavior they want to see in real life -Sex work is more traumatic and coercive than other types of work The goal is to treat sex as just another thing people do. That is a much healthier attitude than hiding it! It's not uniquely traumatic, it's not weird to talk about it or include it in society.

[kurtbennett]

Virtuism and the Jesus Follower vs. Consequentialism (and the dark places it leads to)--Acts 23-24

St. Maximilian Kolbe via Jude Tarrant, Creative Commons God Running is a place for anyone who wants to (or even anyone who wants to want to) love Jesus more deeply, follow Jesus more closely, and love people the way Jesus wants us to. Continue reading Virtuism and the Jesus Follower vs. Consequentialism (and the dark places it leads to)–Acts 23-24

[post-authenticity-society]

A Consequentialist Critique

Liberal democracy possesses fundamental defects, one of which is this: the peaceful enabling of tyranny.

Allow the election of strongmen to the highest political office(s), and atrocities will follow.

[jeremy-ken-anderson]

I feel like discussions of deontology vs consequentialism get bogged down in the details of the scenarios presented. You could call this the Trolley Mechanic Issue.

Presented with the Trolley Problem, people will often point out all kinds of things. They will point out that many poor decisions must already have been made to reach this point. That other choices besides the two presented are always possible in a vast and confusing universe. And that once you're presented with the choice, not pulling the lever is as much a decision you make as pulling it, which means you might be fully in the deontology - "some actions are right or wrong regardless of their eventual consequences" - camp, and still choose to pull the lever, because you consider "inaction that will apparently lead to more death than action" an action that is wrong.

It seems like the reality of life is that these two worldviews aren't as directly in conflict in actual practice as they seem when one puts a "vs" in between them. I actually think MOST people consider "inaction in the face of evil" to be a moral wrong, even if they disagree about what 'evil' is exactly. But this means we're always looking ahead, trying to make plans to prevent bad things from happening by advancing what we think is good, and generally weighing the morality of our current actions against the morality of not having done enough to stop something worse.

There is a certain amount of the future that we can reasonably predict, and be right about 99%+ of the time. This has to be true in order for us to function. If you don't believe your kitchen will be there when you walk down the hall, or that your legs will support you when you walk, or that the parent you spoke to will still be alive when you call them again...You can't live your life. It's possible that any of these things will not be true. But you can't live properly, constantly questioning the existence of the rest of your house, or the continued survival of all your friends and family members. Those are serious neuroses, and they're diagnosed as such because they ruin your ability to function within and enjoy life.

If one considers "inaction in the face of evil" to be a moral wrong in itself, the moral difference between deontology and consequentialism's "the ends justify the means" worldview becomes much more one of how much belief one has in one's ability to predict outcomes, and how heavily one is willing to weight bad actions against the data or beliefs supporting those predictions.

For an extreme example, if one looks at cultists who think they can - indeed, should - murder certain groups of people in order to 'purify the world' because they believe those murdered will experience a joyful afterlife and the process will bring goodness and bliss to all... A pure consequentialist view of this would be, "Well, if they're correct about what will happen, then they're morally justified." And the argument against it isn't deontological, but a more practical "But they aren't correct. They're deranged, their beliefs aren't supported by anything, and it seems increasingly likely that the head of the whole thing invented it in order to collect tithes and live in a big house."

Another way to put this is, someone who swings more toward the deontology camp might look at an "ends justify the means" plan, and say, "But the only part of the 'ends' we know for sure right now is that the innocent guy you're about to shoot to get this done will be dead."

[ogaborus]

Reluctant leadership and authenticity

Photo by George Hodan, Alone Boy. Someone recently asked me a seemingly simple question: “Have you considered the effects on your team’s members when you present yourself as a reluctant leader?” The question didn’t challenge the authenticity of the approach. It was expressed rather in this context: yes, you are a reluctant leader, but how might this be perceived by your colleagues? What is the…

[biblioflyer]

Is Star Trek Insurrection anti-progress?

In which I take a stab at trying to be generous towards one of the Star Trek takes that annoys me the most.

This is a continuation of a series analyzing Discovery’s finale and the different worldviews in the Star Trek fandom. This is also, in part, a reaction and analysis of a discussion about conflicting values behind Trek between Michael Heaton and Tim Sandefur on the Political Orphanage podcast. For more like this, use the Star Trek ethics tag.

In the last post, I focused on the fandom skepticism of the geopolitical assumptions of The Next Generation. Another key complaint Sandefur raises is that Next Generation seems to have turned its back on techno optimism in favor of neo-pastoralism, my words not his.

Neo-pastoralism being the vague notion that not only was the pre-industrial world more ecologically sustainable, to some degree life was better for humans under those conditions. By virtue of being more ecologically sustainable, preindustrial pastoralism is morally superior to the way society would be organized at any point from the industrial revolution onward. 

I’m painting with an extremely broad brush and am almost certainly guilty of caricaturing both Sandefur’s objections to TNG’s relationship with technology and also the beliefs of people who would prefer pre-industrial ways of life for aesthetic, moral, or practical reasons.

Let's set aside the obvious contradiction that TNG takes place on a spaceship outfitted with technological doodads that render industrial scale agriculture if not obsolete, then much less necessary. That’s a point well worth litigating but the savvy thinker recognizes that these are backdrop elements intended to be observed and then quickly taken for granted until they become plot relevant.

The setting’s philosophy of technology and the intrinsic goodness of progress, in the material sense, is found in how characters react to plot devices. The MacGuffins and scenarios that warrant scrutiny by the characters and audiences rather than disappearing into the background.

I’ve got to be honest, I’ve forgotten most of Sandefur’s argument on this point, except that he really, really didn’t like Star Trek Insurrection and had nothing but contempt for the Baku or the idea that anyone would feel sentimental about taking away their unnaturally long lives to maybe confer superior medical care to people offworld, and destroy the planet’s ecology in the process.

I suppose if I was going to steelman this, there are times where it is judged that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. Imminent domain laws in the US are sometimes used to break a stalemate between the representatives of the many, i.e. the state, and individuals or small groups of people who are standing in the way of a major development that theoretically would improve the lives of the many. It would stand to reason that Sandefur would be unsentimental about mountaintop removal mining as long as humans aren’t directly exposed to any pollutants that result.

I guess he sort of has a point?

Except that I think it's pretty clear that Insurrection is a metaphor for the forced removal of people from their land for the purposes of exploiting their natural resources under the assumption that the more materially powerful and numerous society has more of a right to those resources than the people who are not utilizing them “properly.” Furthermore, any resistance to resettlement and “fair compensation” is characterized as irrational sentimentality. 

Although I wonder how many people who think more in terms of whether resources are being properly exploited would be in favor of demolishing the Washington Monument to build a Walmart or dynamiting Mount Rushmore to get at a newly discovered vein of platinum? Are there proponents of forcibly resettling the Baku who oppose resettling the Federation colonists who found themselves on the Cardassian side of the new borders?

Reviewing some of his recent work just to make sure that I wasn’t name-dropping someone who had undergone a massively problematic character arc since the original recording, I do find that in the present Sandefur actually has strong beliefs about private property protections. So I wonder what the threshold is at which private property rights are overridden by collective benefit.

Ultimately, I think Insurrection largely invalidates the arguments of the pro-Baku removal side. Even Admiral Dougherty’s appeal to people with chronic illness only moderately softens the overall impact of seizing the metaphasic radiation. Especially since it's depicted as a natural phenomena. An exotic one to be sure, but anything of nature ought to be something that the Federation can throw its best minds at and eventually replicate in a lab rather than having a finite quantity of whatever charged particles emit the radiation to ration. Of course to give credit to Dougherty and Sandefur, this may not be easy, timely, or even possible in the long term and many lives will be lost from chronic illness while the effort is underway.

This is where its worth talking about virtue ethics vs consequentialism. Because I do believe that TNG definitely leans more towards virtue ethics than consequentialism, but its all contextual. In the context of the Baku removal, Picard opposes it because he believes in his core its wrong. Even though the applications of the metaphasic radiation would presumably help many more people than the 600 people on the Baku planet, the removal of the Baku against their will represents a moral violation of a sort that, under virtue ethics, undermines the habit of disciplined commitment to ethical behavior and invites easier rationalizations of would otherwise be deemed unethical behavior. This is of course, something a consequentialist would likely describe as a slippery slope fallacy.

Ironically, while this is depicted as an example of TNG era Trek being all in on environmentalism to a fault and “anti-progress”, that this seems like something that could ultimately be whipped up in a lab and ultimately being deployed as a resource without practical limit seems pretty consistent with established Treknology and doesn’t seem like a reach. 

So where I end up is feeling that it's just kind of weird and icky to hate on this movie for reasons other than it not being particularly cinematic, it being another cliched “badmiral” story, or the way it utilized particular characters: Data’s emotion chip was disabled and thus his growth as a character reset, Worf was just comic relief and muscle, Beverly was in that movie too I think.