Except this doesn't follow from consequentialism That doesn't really matter to the argument. In context, that was an example of someone getting caught on a phi

Except this doesn't follow from consequentialism That doesn't really matter to the argument. In context, that was an example of someone getting caught on a philosophical landmine. Anyone who's argued consequentialism before has heard that response, as it sounds like you have. Actually, you also arguably got caught in a philosophical landmine there. This seems like a rather shallow take on what it means to be creative and original. "Cached thought" is a term of art on Lesswrong. See the link above the article text. The author isn't talking about quoting dead people, they're talking about trotting out thoughts which have been marked in your brains thought-store as high-quality, but may have not been reevaluated for years, and certainly haven't been re-evaluated for this particular conversation. So what is a philosophical landmine? It's some conversational trigger which distracts an interlocutor by reminding them of their hobby-horse philosophical issue and causes them to start rehearsing the five standard arguments for their position on that issue instead of saying anything relevant to the conversation at hand. If that sounds like an awfully specific sort of scenario, then you haven't talked to many philosophy undergrads.