I appreciated your thoughtful response. Dershowitz’s argument does presume a great deal, and I think it is the presumption of foreknowledge that is the fatal flaw of reductionist arguments based on either utility or morality. I think it is the improbability of Dershowitz’s example that makes it less than useful as a guide for action. I used it (with some trepidation) as a way of making the point that morality should be seen as a function of fundamental principles and context rather than as fixed rules of conduct, using an extreme example.

The only way I see for avoiding the failure of the extremes is to embrace a strategic view. Taking such a perspective goes beyond simplistically balancing ends, ways and means. A strategic view involves understanding the nature and necessity of our ends before committing to any action and, having decided to act, before determining the means and ways to employ in pursuit of those ends.

Beginning with the essence of our desired ends (i.e., understanding their necessity and moral character) empowers us to then act upon our morality as living principles and not as asinine ethics. Simplistic utilitarianism or moralism seeks to presume the nature of our ends through fiat — declaring the inherent virtue of either our aims or our morals as sufficient for understanding the nature of the objects in view. My argument is that neither approach is appropriate. Both of them fail to account for context and contingency, and they thereby both betray their aspirations to be pragmatic and virtuous.