Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Consequentialism is any moral theory which argues that the morality of actions should be judged solely on the basis of the consequences. Thus, acts which have good consequences should be regarded as morally good and acts with bad consequences should be regarded as morally bad.

However, there are some questions that many consequentialist theories address:What sort of consequences count as good consequences?
Who is the primary beneficiary of moral action?
How are the consequences judged and who judges them?
Should we really be committed to taking responsibility for all of the consequences of our actions? After all, those consequences will reach far and wide in ways we cannot anticipate.
The impossibility of determining the full range of consequences renders attempts to evaluate the morality of an action based upon those consequences similarly impossible.

Do you view consequentialism as a suitable guide to morality?

Good and bad consequences would still remain relative judgements, so there isn't a way to evaluate the system except on an individual basis, which negates commentary on the theory as a whole.

In general though, I feel like people are more comfortable measuring morality by the intentions of the action rather than its consequences, due to the unpredictability of outside forces upon our actions. I'd count myself among such advocates.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Good and bad consequences would still remain relative judgements, so there isn't a way to evaluate the system except on an individual basis, which negates commentary on the theory as a whole.

In general though, I feel like people are more comfortable measuring morality by the intentions of the action rather than its consequences, due to the unpredictability of outside forces upon our actions. I'd count myself among such advocates.

Thats like Karma.

Karma is about consequences, it tells that there aren't good or bad actions, there is just action that will bring bad consequences(for you) and actions that will bring good consequences.

But differently than consequencialism or any moral theories, Karma is not seeking to responsabilize someone for the consequences of their actions. Karma just says some actions brings bad results for who done the action.

I think consequencialism has some sense since it is based on the consequences, but the problem is that it is seeks to responsabilize people for their actions because thats what morality does.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Good and bad consequences would still remain relative judgements, so there isn't a way to evaluate the system except on an individual basis, which negates commentary on the theory as a whole.



That's why I didn't say anything. I feel like I'm going in a circle before I even attempt to discuss it