Kai Nielsen: Against Moral Conservativism
1. Conflict between Nielsen (for the Utilitarians) and Anscombe (for Conservatives).
 Anscombe: execution of the innocent is always corrupt, no sense talking to a person
who would accept such a course of action.
2. A Just War
-- Nielsen: sometimes bombing the innocent is acceptable, even if we have good reason
to be morally disgusted by it. The Battle of Algiers: here we have on both sides, morally
sensitive people. The terrorists, who with heavy heart, kill civilians, and the army, who
with heavy heart, will the civilians too. 9/11? How do we see them? They see us?
-- Anscombe: never okay to do this, it’s morally incorrect. Anscombe and the Atomic
Bomb, her stance against Truman
3. Two Arguments.
A) Act and Rule Utilitarianism. First, Nielsen wants to argue that our common sense intuitions
are to do what is conservative. But, Nielsen argues, we should:
-- (a) in some situations yield to our conservative intuitions and allow them to affect our
behavior. But when we should do this or not will be a matter of utilitarian calculation. We’ll call
these situations Rule Utilitarianism, and talk about that Wednesday when we cover Hospers,
who looks at this more directly. Here’s the “Case of the Magistrate”
-- (b) in other situations we should not yield to those intuitions, and to do so would be to
commit ourselves to what Nielsen calls moral radicalism. That we should not always yield is
called Act Utilitarianism. Here is the “Case of the Fat Man”
B) The Value of Conservative Intuition
a. Nielsen wants to argue that even when we ought not to act upon our conservative intuitions,
we do not want to get rid of the intuition because it has a good reason for being in our heads.
How can Nielsen argue this? Isn’t this inconsistent?
Let’s turn to Argument (A-b) first, that there are cases where we ought to reject moral
radicalism. Here Nielsen argues that the basic argument is that we are not treating the fat guy as
an end, and that in doing so we reduce him to a mere means, which is morally reprehensible.
Nielsen: we have horrible guilt, because we are pained at treating him this way. This proves that
we are morally sensitive, and do treat him as an end.
b. Nielsen: to argue as a conservative here to keep one’s “moral purity” at the sake of pain.
4. Is Nielsen Right? Has he answered Anscombe?