stathisp at gmail.com
Tue Aug 27 01:44:31 UTC 2019
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 04:19, 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.
It is possible to be a consequentialist and maintain, for example, that
torture is never justified because it is so terrible that the harm from it
outweighs any possible benefit.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat