Editing Consequent (section)

==Transcript==
{{computertranscript}}
:[Describe panel here]
:How is it that all humans have similar intuitions but we have multiple ethical frameworks that people can't agree on?
:We don't. Everyone is a utilitarian consequentialist, they just don't realize it.
:What about virtue ethicists, who concern themselves with behaving in a right fashion, or deontologists who want universal maxims based on duty? What about religious traditions based entirely on a deity's commandments?
:Take any of those traditions and consider any behavior they permit which consequentialism doesn't. Refusing to lie to save a life. Eating forbidden food. That sort of thing. Now, ask them what they'd do if performing that behavior caused 400 hamsters to explode.
:Bet the moment the hamster-fur starts flying, they reevaluate their theory!
:You know that joke about how everyone is a prostitute for enough money? It's the same with ethics. Everyone's a consequentialist for enough exploding hamsters.
:I'd like to read a paper on this just for the illustrations.
:Ham-splosions are the first objective measure of utility.
:Caption: smbc-comics.com