[ExI] Consequentialism

[William Flynn Wallace]

That's the point. Consequentialists can choose what seems to them to
be an extremely "good" objective and that gives them licence to do
anything that helps to achieve that objective. No matter how "evil"
their actions might be. Though of course they should limit themselves
to causing less damage than the "good" that they are aiming for.

But you are still judging them by your standards, which I assume are based
on intent (?).  I agree with you all the way,
but consequence only or intent only does not work for me, the first for the
reasons you are giving, and the second
for inability to prove intent.  All the more reason to teach moral
reasoning starting very young - in schools.

bill w


On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 1:20 PM BillK via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 16:59, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
> >
> > But this is a contradiction.  If the end justifies the means, then the
> means are not morally dubious.  Logical error here.
> > (no, I am not a consequentialist)
> >
> > bill w
> >
>
> That's the point. Consequentialists can choose what seems to them to
> be an extremely "good" objective and that gives them licence to do
> anything that helps to achieve that objective. No matter how "evil"
> their actions might be. Though of course they should limit themselves
> to causing less damage than the "good" that they are aiming for.
>
>
>
> BillK
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20190825/15679dc4/attachment.htm>