Where? The author's stated purpose is "I want to help people work out what they really think and mean." Decision-making isn't on the table.
> The kind of black-and-white thinking espoused
Again, where? The example isn't espousing black-and-white thinking, or anything about veganism. It's an example and it's exemplifying actively looking for further underlying reasons and further implications.
If one of the main examples is a decision making process, I don't think it's fair to say decision making isn't on the table. You might say it's about evaluating claims, not a decisions per se, and the example happens to be a decision that is also a claim ("I should (not) be vegan, because..."), but this is still decision making.
Like half the content of the article is an example of someone making a decision about being vegan. The author’s stated topic is less relevant than what he actually chooses to cover.
> The example isn't espousing black-and-white thinking, or anything about veganism. It's an example
Did you read the article? I don’t understand how you can say this. I’m also not sure why you’re so interested in the fact that it’s an example. That happens to be the prosaic style of the article - that doesn’t exempt it from judgement.
This out of approximately forty to fifty paragraphs dealing with the larger topic. None of the "key points" deal with veganism. None of the links or books at the end do. The topic wasn't even mentioned until a quarter of the way through the piece, and wasn't mentioned again in the last half of the piece after the assumptions bit.
Advocating for something is very different than using it as an example. The author could have laid out some premises supporting the January 6th insurrection - would you assume the author does support insurrection? Such an example might be useful specifically to set up how important it is to think in a structured way and to challenge your own thinking, so that you don't support the wrong things.
For example, what if the author prefers a deontological framework? Then they'll write about that, and it'll be perfectly valid.
In either case, it doesn't seem necessary to mention any particular framework by name in such an article. Because it's an article on the Internet aimed at a popular audience, not an undergraduate philosophy textbook.
It’s only necessary if you want to teach people how to make good decisions. If he’s just writing a fluff piece for clueless midwits who want to LARP as having a functional explicit decision-making procedure, it’s not necessary.
> Because it's an article on the Internet aimed at a popular audience
This doesn’t render it immune to criticism.
Can you clarify this a little? Utility is helpful, I would think, but there are cases in which utility isn't a reliable indicator. (For example, the utility of running into a burning building to save a stranger; or the utility of telling the truth when a lie would serve better.)
How would a utility theory fail to cover either of these cases?