Philosophers (and probably most intellectuals) are more interested in pursuing what they see as the logical implications of their theories than they are in paying attention to the shlumpy diversity of defensible values that people actually have, and then trying to figure out how these might be negotiated in the life of an agent or community.

Progressive Consequentialsm requires us to make the world better but we are under no obligation to bring about the best possible world.

We can use economic instruments to help realize our goals but economics does not tell us what our goals should be.

Bentham spent much of his life writing constitutions and proposing legal reform in the light of his utilitarianism. The evaluation of particular acts was hardly his concern. The psychology of his day was hedonistic and he worked in that framework and passed it on to Mill, but it is clear as day that Mill was not a hedonist in the sense in which we use that term today, though he used the language of pleasure and pain to express his views.

We're highly adaptable and have developed some powerful systems of representation.

When I first started studying climate change back in the 1980s, I was struck by how difficult it was be for people to understand this issue.

Many environmental questions are in a deep way philosophical, despite our penchant for treating them as if they were only technological, economic, or whatever.