Blog 2
I'll recap the moral philosophy of Theoconsequentialists.
What is right is what serves the will of God because God knows full consequences.  But we know the will of God through the perceptions of people.  This will is situational and consequentialistic rather than static and simply defined.  It is "normative" in that local norms are a basic guideline locally.  The mass of people in a place and time have collectively established norms that constitute God's instructions for them at that time and in that place.  But "times" and "places" don't always have clear boundaries and they are always arranged hierarchically.  Norms that are more widespread in time and space, and across more people, should have higher weight in deriving basic moral guidance than more local or temporary norms.  For example, in the US, current federal law, agreed to by the majority of the people presumably as God has inspired them, takes precedence over state law which is more local.  

But God's will changes as situations change.  It is consequentialistic after all.  If people know God through the majority perception and the majority are percieving God through majority perception we get a house of mirrors in which people are just listening to each other and nobody is listening to God.  But giving people permission to violate current norms on the excuse of diving inspiration is a bad idea.  

What is indicated as that people should abide by current norms while proposing reforms on the basis of divine inspiration.  This is not to say that earlier norms were wrong for their time, it's to say they were temporally local and new norms are needed.  

For example, in most of the world for most of history women have been confined to being primarily breeders, and this involved denying them other opportunities.  From each according to ability.  This was necessary for economic expansion because raw numbers of human bodies have always been the main ingredient to productivity.  But that is no longer true.  More and better technology and organization are the primary factors now.  Lots of peasants don't really add that much.  Denying women opportunities is now a detrimental plan.  So even though most of the world still practices sexism, that doesn't mean that should continue.  Reform should proceed apace.  And in the meantime, when in Rome we do as the Romans do to the extent it doesn't violate world standards.  Most of the world doesn't practice polygamy any more, so even in a Muslim country a Theoconsequentialist won't practice it.  It is a minority norm and locally optional.  Most of the world does impose a separate dress code for men and women, though the exact form will vary locally.  Theoconsequentialist women in Muslim countries should conform to the local dress code while there.  Theoconsequentialist men in such countries could conform to the same code, or approximate it, in sympathy.  International law doesn't ban countries imposing Burkas.  We should conform under protest.   

A good example of this principle is marijuana laws.  I think pot makes you stupider and impairs your ability to serve God.  It also makes you a poorer driver.  Perhaps it has a place for some adults, medically, provided it is paired with restrictions on operating machinery and should not be restricted as though it made people into raging pyschopaths.   But the legalization and response to it has been wrong headed.  The federal law still wrongly bans it completely.  That is higher than state law even if the law goes essentially unenforced.  And even if a majority of the people in the country want pot moved out of schedule 1, the majority also support the federal government having authority.  You can go with the majority in supporting reform but that doesn't mean you can violate federal law.  States quitting claim on pot doesn't legalize it.  Most of the people in the United States want pot legalized but most of them don't smoke pot, so you don't get to do so either.  Most of the people in the United States exceed the speed limit despite making laws setting the speed limit.  You have no moral duty to relatively disadvantage yourself in the face of such hypocrisy.  The consequences you can personally project should be your guide because the mass perception of God's knowledge of consequences isn't working right.


What if the local law is to ban proposing reform?  Or to violate higher laws?  In truly oppressive situations you have no duty to such standards. The will of God is for reform to be possible and broader standards to prevail.  I'm just going to give you that message right now. You may be purely consequentialistic relying on your own reasoning and more global standards, not even respecting the supposed local majority.  For example, there is no duty of a Russian to go fight in Ukraine even though most Russians think that war is OK, because the war is a violation of international norms.  That doesn't mean a Russian can just be stupid.  You have a right and duty to do what is practical.  Sometimes that's God's instruction to us.  Think for yourself.  

This form of reasoning can be applied to many issues.  For instance, most traditional cultures frown on gay sex (because they wanted to make more peasants).  Yet God made people have varied kinds of sexuality and gave those native inclinations some wiggle room.  People being generally prone to reproduction, but adaptable and varied, was a good general design that covered most possible situations.  Oppressing gay people is as pointless and stupid as oppressing people who like and indulge in strawberry ice cream.  Provided the cow was milked humanely, there's nothing wrong with it.  But that doesn't mean liking strawberry ice cream is a great moral thing everyone should do.  Sexual taste has no intrinsic moral value.  There are efforts in some quarters to extol non-traditional sexual choices as some kind of better way, and I doubt seriously that such reforms are God's intent.  Hedonism is instrumental at best.  People are here to work.  The work you do in this world, the total of the consequences you create, is what gives moral value.  How you tickle your privates is less than insignificant.  This generally is the consensus most people are moving toward, a reform of traditional values being promoted by people who continue to practice the majority ways locally.  This is as it should be.