---
title: "SU-PHIL2 Oral Exam 1 Prep"
source: https://www.jemoka.com/posts/kbhsu_phil2_oral_exam_1_prep/
---

It seems to me that once we depart from the notion of TS and TO, the later conversations about consiquentialism, objectivism, and justice ceases to discuss what exactly is &ldquo;right&rdquo;/&ldquo;wrong&rdquo; and instead how to bring it about; yet, under a notion of command theory, the latter considerations of what &ldquo;to do&rdquo; (i.e., whether to be consiquentialist, etc.) can be waved away by sang &ldquo;people do it/people believe in it&rdquo;. Therefore, isn&rsquo;t there an order of operations required or at least an assumption of some kind of objectivism which allows the remaining conversations to proceed? How does consiquentialist theories command deliberation? I know it is not a deliberative theory, but how does the consiquentialist ask one to go about having choices? That is, surely, as the readings mention, one mustn&rsquo;t over-think aspects which require spontaneity? This is a higher level question: especially for more &ldquo;extreme&rdquo; arguments like Singer, how is it supposed to be taken? What Singer advocates directly is practically impossible to implement, even in a weaker version. Doesn&rsquo;t this show the absurdity of globally moral thinking? If it doesn&rsquo;t, how is it supposed to be implemented?
