consequent
Original: consequent on Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal
Transcript
Panel 1:
Man with green/teal hair: How is it that all humans have similar intuitions but we have multiple ethical frameworks that people can't agree on?
Panel 2:
Man with glasses: We don't. Everyone is a utilitarian consequentialist, they just don't realize it.
Panel 3:
Man with green hair: What about virtue ethicists, who concern themselves with behaving in a right fashion, or deontologists who want universal maxims based on duty? What about religious traditions based entirely on a deity's commandments?
Panel 4:
Man with glasses: Take any of those traditions and consider any behavior they permit which consequentialism doesn't. Refusing to lie to save a life. Eating forbidden food. That sort of thing. Now, ask them what they'd do if performing that behavior caused 400 hamsters to explode.
Panel 5:
Man with green hair: Bet the moment the hamster-fur starts flying, they reevaluate their theory!
Panel 6:
Man with glasses: You know that joke about how everyone is a prostitute for enough money? It's the same with ethics. Everyone's a consequentialist for enough exploding hamsters.
Panel 7:
Man with green hair: I'd like to read a paper on this just for the illustrations.
Panel 8:
Man with glasses: Ham-splosions are the first objective measure of utility.
Votey:
Man with glasses: If they're not consequentialists, they're at least hamster-considering anti-not-consequentialists.
Man with green/teal hair: How is it that all humans have similar intuitions but we have multiple ethical frameworks that people can't agree on?
Panel 2:
Man with glasses: We don't. Everyone is a utilitarian consequentialist, they just don't realize it.
Panel 3:
Man with green hair: What about virtue ethicists, who concern themselves with behaving in a right fashion, or deontologists who want universal maxims based on duty? What about religious traditions based entirely on a deity's commandments?
Panel 4:
Man with glasses: Take any of those traditions and consider any behavior they permit which consequentialism doesn't. Refusing to lie to save a life. Eating forbidden food. That sort of thing. Now, ask them what they'd do if performing that behavior caused 400 hamsters to explode.
Panel 5:
Man with green hair: Bet the moment the hamster-fur starts flying, they reevaluate their theory!
Panel 6:
Man with glasses: You know that joke about how everyone is a prostitute for enough money? It's the same with ethics. Everyone's a consequentialist for enough exploding hamsters.
Panel 7:
Man with green hair: I'd like to read a paper on this just for the illustrations.
Panel 8:
Man with glasses: Ham-splosions are the first objective measure of utility.
Votey:
Man with glasses: If they're not consequentialists, they're at least hamster-considering anti-not-consequentialists.
Alt text
An eight-panel SMBC comic, a conversation between a man with green hair and a man with glasses. Green-hair asks why all humans have similar intuitions yet can't agree on multiple ethical frameworks. Glasses replies that they don't disagree: everyone is secretly a utilitarian consequentialist. Green-hair lists virtue ethicists, deontologists, and religious traditions as counterexamples. Glasses says: take any behavior those traditions permit but consequentialism doesn't (refusing to lie to save a life, eating forbidden food) and ask what they'd do if that behavior caused 400 hamsters to explode. Green-hair agrees that the moment hamster-fur starts flying, everyone reevaluates their theory. Glasses compares it to the joke that everyone is a prostitute for enough money: everyone's a consequentialist for enough exploding hamsters. Green-hair says he'd read a paper on this just for the illustrations. Glasses concludes that 'ham-splosions are the first objective measure of utility.' Votey: a close-up of the glasses man with eyes rolled wearily upward, saying, 'If they're not consequentialists, they're at least hamster-considering anti-not-consequentialists.'
Transcribed by Claude Opus 4.8.