Stubborn Attachments: A Vision for a Society of Free, Prosperous, and Responsible Individuals

by Tyler Cowen

James Lenman, a philosopher and a commentator in this literature, doubts the importance of consequences as a measure of right and wrong. Lenman’s arguments are interesting, but I think that, properly understood, they strengthen the case for rules-based, big-picture thinking about consequences. Let’s first go through Lenman’s arguments, and then we’ll return to what the whole mess might mean.3 Lenman presents a D-Day example in which we must choose which French beach to invade to defeat the Nazis. This is, of course, an important decision, with significant consequences for the outcome of the war. In the example, we must choose between two candidate beaches for the invasion, yet there is no strong military reason to favor one beach over the other. One of the two choices is likely to end up being the superior decision; we just don’t know which. There is, however, a complicating factor: if we land at the northern beach, a dog will break one of its legs and suffer some pain, possibly as a result of the military action. (How about a slight sprain for the poor dog instead?) If we land at the southern beach, no canine injury occurs.