Claim: non-consequentialists are not effective rationalists
Evidence 1: There exist strong, relatively obvious arguments for consequentialism.
Evidence 2: There are no equally strong counterarguments.]
Reason for Evidence 1: Search your mind for arguments for consequentialism. You should find one, seeing that you read lw. They sound relatively obvious, don't they? Certainly that a professional philosopher should encounter them.
Reason for Evidence 2: Search your mind for arguments against consequentialism. You don't find very many good ones, do you?
Is there any point to arguing at the meta level like this? Why not just give your arguments instead of arguing that arguments exist?
Y'all know the rules: