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?
__________________
I am not driven by people’ s praise and I am not slowed down by people’ s criticism.
You only live once. But if you live it right, once is enough. Wrong. We only die once, we live every day!
Make poverty history.
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.
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.
__________________
Last edited by Atlantis001 on May 3rd, 2008 at 12:00 AM
its easier to deal with this if we can seperate actions and intentions. intentions are what a PERSON should be judged on. actions can be good or bad, but that may not necessarily relate to the intentions of the person. people should therefore try to gain more knowledge about the world and of the consequece of their intentions so as to make their actions turn out more accurately to their intentions. good consequences are the ones which benefit yourself and others and the goodness is self evident to humans who have basic {and common} defining qualities and instincts which makes some things {e.g. life} preferrable over others{e.g. death}, the golden rule is a good way, and empathy is another good way to judge. there are many ultimate levels of judging good or bad as far as humans go. look at my explanation of non reletive morality arising from logic if you really are interested in what i have to say.
I guess for many "good" or "bad" is subjective. Who makes the rule on what is good or bad. The outcome I suppose might suggest it, but then again you don't know if that certain outcome has other benefits later on to you or someone else.
Words to live by. I agree.
And possibly not just to you either. It could be a learning experience. for someone close to you. Using you as an example/vehicle, lets say of something they did and won't admit, but until they see it in their own face happening to someone they are close too, learns the lesson that they have denied.
__________________ Deja Moo: The feeling that you've heard this bull before.
Last edited by Deja~vu on May 31st, 2008 at 10:09 PM
actually, good or bad is very objective in many major aspects based in logic as long as human beings can agree to a few defining characteristics about themselves without which they wudnt be human. the rules are made by logic as it takes into account the basic characteristics of humans FOR humans and the core biases present in the human race which are taken as axioms to base the logic on. as for the last part, this is where intentions come in, as in the absence of significant knowledge to reasonably know the future, intentions are hte best guides to actions
but more than words in my humble oppinion. they have logical basis to them.
it wud take a long time to explain, i have written it before but im not good with the search function. basically, in my oppinion, MOST of the differences in oppinion about what is right and wrong result from a faulty logical progression from the things that literally ALL humans have in common and can not be denied. these things are more basic than the personal differences among us{self preservatory instincts, desire to exist as opposed to not existing, desire to feal jow as opposed to pain}. people, either due to a lack of introspective ability or a lack of knowledge concerning the consequence of their decisions, move away{at different paces and in different severity} from these basic concepts which are the basis for a logical system of morals as far as humans are concerned. {HOW they create a mutual system for collective morals is a long explanation which you can try to find by me on these forums}. so basically, actions and decision which truthfully and unbiasly reflect these basic axioms{in my system } are logical {as we ourselves are humans and subject TO them and it is illogical for us to deny our own basis or oppose it} while those that do not because of the above mentioned reasons{of people making faulty judgements or actions} are illogical.
basically, people are not gods in themselves, capable of shaping their realities out of thin air and creating concepts completely alien to others from nothing. we are bound, collectively{althoug in some VERY severe cases this doesnt hold true} by certain concepts and basic biases{which are logically DESIREABLE as defining criteria to our forms and beings without which WE wudnt EXIST} which are the basis, in my oppinion, for the logical system of morals.
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.
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.
Logic as we understand now and in mathilogical (sp) compilations? How would that be objective to the human mind that is not. Humans are subjective creators.
__________________ Deja Moo: The feeling that you've heard this bull before.
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.
KMC Community Forums
May 1st, 2008 04:12 PM
} are logical {as we ourselves are humans and subject TO them and it is illogical for us to deny our own basis or oppose it} while those that do not because of the above mentioned reasons{of people making faulty judgements or actions} are illogical.
