• It seems to me that once we depart from the notion of TS and TO, the later conversations about consiquentialism, objectivism, and justice ceases to discuss what exactly is “right”/“wrong” and instead how to bring it about; yet, under a notion of command theory, the latter considerations of what “to do” (i.e., whether to be consiquentialist, etc.) can be waved away by sang “people do it/people believe in it”. Therefore, isn’t there an order of operations required or at least an assumption of some kind of objectivism which allows the remaining conversations to proceed?
• How does consiquentialist theories command deliberation? I know it is not a deliberative theory, but how does the consiquentialist ask one to go about having choices? That is, surely, as the readings mention, one mustn’t over-think aspects which require spontaneity?
• This is a higher level question: especially for more “extreme” arguments like Singer, how is it supposed to be taken? What Singer advocates directly is practically impossible to implement, even in a weaker version. Doesn’t this show the absurdity of globally moral thinking? If it doesn’t, how is it supposed to be implemented?