<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Utilitarian Ethics on Rational America</title><link>https://RationalAmerica.com/tags/utilitarian-ethics/</link><description>Recent content in Utilitarian Ethics on Rational America</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2026 09:00:00 -0400</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://RationalAmerica.com/tags/utilitarian-ethics/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Never Legislate on Moral Vibes If You Want Laws That Reduce Real Suffering</title><link>https://RationalAmerica.com/posts/2026-09-17-never-legislate-on-moral-vibes-if-you-want-laws-th/</link><pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2026 09:00:00 -0400</pubDate><guid>https://RationalAmerica.com/posts/2026-09-17-never-legislate-on-moral-vibes-if-you-want-laws-th/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;There’s a moment in nearly every legislative career when the moral clarity starts to crack. You’ve got a bill in front of you, drafted in good faith, backed by advocates who keep citing “human dignity.” One side says the policy will save lives. The other says it will destroy families. Both are certain. Both are, as far as I can tell, running on pure intuition.&lt;/p&gt;&#10;&lt;p&gt;Watch a committee long enough and you notice a stranger pattern. The same lawmaker who demands zero tolerance, no exceptions, and “their choice, their consequences” in one hearing will turn around and beg for individualized mercy on behalf of a constituent caught in a technicality. Rules when they’re convenient. Consequences when they want to sound tough. Never the twain shall meet.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>