However there are a lot of things in the world that we can be wrong about. A strategy of "I'm going to use deontological reasoning" just means that we have to s

However there are a lot of things in the world that we can be wrong about. A strategy of "I'm going to use deontological reasoning" just means that we have to sort right from wrong by an evolutionary process over generations, getting to kids while they are young enough to be swayed, in a process that is a bit icky and disrespectful of people's beliefs. It would be better if people could be persuaded by evidence. I don't think that you necessarily need to sway kids while they're young. 10 years ago there were no states in the US that had legalized recreational cannabis use for adults. Today there are 17, and I expect at least another 17 over the next decade. What changed? Attitudes shifted among all age groups. It didn't seem like a process of grandparents dying out and their grandchildren entering the voting booth. It didn't seem like an evidence based process either. I was well persuaded in the 1990s that the deleterious health effects and other negative externalities of cannabis use were no worse than those corresponding to alcohol. The historical example of Prohibition was more than enough evidence for me that fueling a black market was worse than letting adults impair themselves. I wonder why evidence didn't persuade people to change laws sooner, yet the shift happened far faster than generational replacement once it started. If anyone reading has a convincing model for how the cannabis attitude shift happened: does it only rationalize history, or does it also predict other things likely to change in the near future? There are a lot of ways we can turn past series of events into coherent stories. There are fewer that successfully foretell what happens in the next chapter.