But I don't want anybody mandating it. I've been trying to work out in my own mind why I switched to being more, uh, 'deontologist' if you will, several years ago. I'm just starting to almost be able to articulate it. If you take a consequentialist stance, then any catastrophe sufficient to put your chosen 'utility' at risk instantly justifies literally any measure that mitigates that risk. As long as the measure is outside the realm of the thing you regard as 'utility'. Is free speech for its own sake not part of 'utility' but only a means to increase it? Then out the window it goes when it causes problems. Same for privacy, leaving your home without permission from an authority, pretty much anything we think of as freedom.
It greatly disturbs me to find the Overton Window in a place where I see smart Americans debating every day whether strongly authoritarian and invasive measures are OK, if they save lives.