I mean, there are certainly ways more narrowly targeted than "any crime(s) this person may or may not have done over the last decade."
Attacking EU corruption is an easy ploy for nationalists - despite the fact that the EU is unlikely to be significantly more corrupt than their own home nation, and in many cases significantly less corrupt.
no, there's a difference between mediating between preferences and assigning reasonable priorities to them (especially in cases when some of them don't even exist) and on the other hand defining a universal morality based on one person's preferences.
of course. trivially, even; one person might have a different (and incompatible) preference from another person whose preferences are clearly more relevant.
That's not a question this framework asks or answers, as it is more meta-ethical. So it is far better at explaining why we even have morality (and notions of 'rights') in the first place-- to mediate between the preferences of persons (and any other entities) capable of communicating preference-- than prescribing any action in particular as "the morally correct action". But what we can say is that the one that is most deeply affected and actually has a preference is the one that should be empowered to decide. So indeed, exercising a right can be wrong. But that doesn't mean we should extinguish the right.
Then why reject the idea that some rules have intrinsic value? You can explain the existence of morality in this way ( though I obviously don't accept your view), while also endorsing certain guidelines we know to be expedient towards those ends. Thou shalt not kill will nearly always match your rationale, yet you dismiss the value in it.
In fact I'm sure Le Pen's core voters find it a boon that Le Pen has been defrauding them since the EU ''deserves it''.
That was the last one i have heard of :
www.lemonde.fr
Just work with parliament to get a bill that does pass, and not force the opposition to vote out his prime minister. And start fixing problems for the lower classes so Le Pen can't take advantage of their anger. Doing a deal with the left can achieve both goals easy peasy. I know Macron ran on ''professionalizing France'' but though luck. Keeping Le Pen out of power takes precedence, especially with her ties to France's enemies.
Well, the better (and more democratic) option would have been to appoint a Prime Minister from the bloc that performed the best in the most recent election: the NFP. But he didn't.
There's a credible theory that Macron was willing to withhold support for NFP candidates in the snap election and let RN take the race wholesale, and it was Attal's mutiny that actually prevented the RN from gaining power completely. Macron now lives and breathes spite for the left, he is the textbook example of preferring to hand power to the far right before giving even a concession to the left.
It is nearly instead of always because of cases in which it conflicts with some very important rights of others. And in the specific case of abortion it is not at all clear why we should consider unwanted yet-to-be persons part of any kind of moral community. They aren't even indifferent.
If it is "very important rights" that can override the obligation not to kill, that just means there are other rules in your moral view that are of higher priority. Circling back to the ideas of consequentialism and utilitarianism, it doesn't seem like yours (or almost anyone's) perspectives actually fall into those. You're basically just describing your own personal deontological system. Subjective qualifiers like "relevant" or "important" are just putting your moral hierarchy vaguely one step removed from outright saying "these are my commandments".
