Consequentialism

Originally posted by leonheartmm
take an equation dejavu. it is simply a tool or device to PROCESS information based on the type of information that is provided. depending on the TYPE of information provided, radically different answers can arise. it is the TYPE of information put in the equation which form the limits and type of processing that will occur. {referring to reasonably complex equation with non simplistic graphs} {e.g. as you put finite values in an equation, you also[even thoug we take this for granted usuall for the sake of simplicity] put in basic assumptions like these values are equatable, scaler in themselves, remain constant with the passage of time and are referring to the magnitude of similarly equateable quantities. if these werent true, the equation wud not be able to properly process anything}.

now this information may be true or not. similarly, logic is a tool to process, based on the basic criteria of the information put in. however if we begin logic by the basic assumptions that make us human than it is true information because we{by our conciousness} are self defined as our basic defining qualities{which make us EXIST as who we are in the first place} are self evident. hence, logic{deductive reasoning following cause and effect} then becomes an objective tool for calculation and produces objective results since our basic defining criterias{as i explained earlier} are objective as far as other members of the human race are concerned. such a model ofcourse, wudnt be applicable if you are NOT defined by self awareness or EXISTANCE or other fundamental concepts, however, that wud possibly only relate tp beings who exist outside our dimension or hypothetical gods etc who are not confined by {what we humans consider } such basic concepts{for instance, a hypothetical being who is defined by negating existance or non existance can not be subject to the logical model we have used}. for all humans however{unless sum1 can, totally nowingly, deny such basic concepts about themselves} it applies and thus becomes objective as far as the human race is concerned. other than maybe a rare few individuals who are so psychologically damaged etc, that they lose even these basic concepts.

are self defined

oh different sources, here and there, but id like to beleive that the outlook is of my own making, or atleast synthesis 🙂 , its just my take on the matter thats all.

as for the self defined part, you dont NEED any1 else to be SELF defined.thats the whole point. us humans can recognise our OWN existance which s unique, hence we become content and context at the same time.

Originally posted by chithappens
Don't get me wrong, I agree, it's just that it can be simplified.

Thus...

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Answer via dino comic:

http://www.qwantz.com/archive/000836.html

313

131

Yeah basically

Originally posted by leonheartmm
logic in itself is subjective, but when used in context to humans etc, the basic axioms of the argument become objective. which is wy logic can come up with objective or partially objective answers.

Originally posted by Storm
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:[list][*]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?[/list]
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?

This seems like a meta ethical form of Utilitarianism ?

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Morality is. Good and bad is. Logic doesn't have an empirical procedure like the scientific method, so we might be able to consider it vaguely subjective. Yet its usage is based on arguments that use objective criteria as their premise.

Saying 2+2=4 and 4+3=7, so 2+5 must = 7 is logic. The same can be said of most sciences. Objective criteria. Saying that something is moral has no objective basis. Logic itself might be subjective, but its use certainly isn't. Imo at least.

Wrong !!!!

Look up Kantian Meta Physics

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Wrong !!!!

Look up Kantian Meta Physics

No thanks. I don't take well to anonymous demands when the person doesn't first attempt discussion or even simple courtesy.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
No thanks. I don't take well to anonymous demands when the person doesn't first attempt discussion or even simple courtesy.

Its not a "Demand" its just its too complicated to explain via the Internet. I don't have all ****ing day to explain the difference between Apiori synthetic and A priori analytic. The point is Kant's meta physics explain where you are wrong. Your perspective is similar to Humes, and Kant's meta physics refutes it well. Don't take criticism so personally. Its not an attack upon yourself, just your opinion. Man up a little.

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Its not a "Demand" its just its too complicated to explain via the Internet. I don't have all ****ing day to explain the difference between Apiori synthetic and A priori analytic. The point is Kant's meta physics explain where you are wrong. Your perspective is similar to Humes, and Kant's meta physics refutes it well. Don't take criticism so personally. Its not an attack upon yourself, just your opinion. Man up a little.

You're projecting.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You're projecting.

Sorry ? 😕

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
I don't have all ****ing day to explain the difference between...

lol, and which philosopher did you steal that attitude off of?

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Sorry ? 😕

You note nonexistent hostility in Digi's statements because you yourself have a hostile attitude and do not wish to admit it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You note nonexistent hostility in Digi's statements because you yourself have a hostile attitude and do not wish to admit it.

No I'm being aggressive now, but i always get aggressive when wrongly accused of something.

Why are you' jokeying' him, btw ?

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, and which philosopher did you steal that attitude off of?

*sigh*

Eh, don't bunch up your panties there guys. My point was just that I can't go bounding off to read novels every time CD name-drops a semi-obscure philosophical maxim, which is about every 4th post. Cliff-note versions are possible in most cases, and while I realize that we can't constantly be clarifying ourselves, not everyone has read the same material here...even among the more well-read members.

My example was crap, granted, but there is a difference between subjective and objective criteria ("What's the best meal?" as opposed to "What is 3+8?"😉 even within the bounds of our own overarching subjectivity. Otherwise, we have no basis for discussion on anything.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, and which philosopher did you steal that attitude off of?

neitchze? 😆

Originally posted by leonheartmm
neitchze? 😆

Good guess, he's up there with Plato.