Moral reasoning

There are two kinds of moral reasoning. One is "consequentialist" moral reasoning and the other is "categorical" moral reasoning. Those who belong to the former camp shall be referred to here as "consequentialist". The former states that morality is relative, and dependent on the situation. In other words, the consequences determine whether the action is moral or not. In the latter form of moral reasoning, morality is absolute. There are 2 categories - right and wrong, and all things each fall into one and only one of these categories.

But the categorical moral reasoning is an illusion. There is no such thing. In fact, EVERYONE is a consequentialist. The only difference is that "categorical" people lack empathy and imagination. It is akin to a computer programmer saying that mathematics is a load of bull. True, the programmer does not directly deal with mathematics, but every time he writes a program, he gives lie to what he just said. Again, it's a lack of imagination on the part of the programmer, because all of computer programming boils down to mathematics.

So, I venture to say that "consequential" people have superior minds. The Harvard lecture was in fact part of a course in political science. It seemed like around 80% of the students in attendance were "categorical". This is a frightening figure. How can those lacking in empathy and imagination enter the political arena and hope to do a good job therein? Some of these students will be judges, lawyers, politicians, etc. How can a judge pass judgement upon someone when they cannot put themselves in the accused's position? How can politicians represent their constituents if they are out of touch with their constituents' needs (example: G W Bush)? 1