Hello all. I am writing a substack newsletter on contractualist ethics. The linked article describes a thought experiment that intends to show the importance of freedom in this philosophy, which is basically a revised version of Nozick’s “experience machine.”

Summary: Imagine a "utility coach" who is able to maximize a person’s utility so long as the person delegates all their decisions to the utility coach. If welfare is the basis of morality, are people morally bound to subject themselves to the utility coach's commands or should people be free to make their own choice of whether to accept the utility coach's bargain? What is more important, welfare or freedom?