Consequentialism

[@amunajr.1383]

U r so underrated😳 #RESPECT

[@maearianboter6052]

thank you and God Bless!

[@spikemoody1757]

A very interesting aspect of philosophy

[@victorudu.1713]

waoo your explanation is so easy to understand. thanks a million.

[@illianawright3962]

So this is kind of like, “think before you act”. Or “use you head not your heart”

[@b.t.3406]

Interesting philosophy. Pity it ignores the fact that some people (cultures) see pain as pleasurable in some cases or feel that pleasure is more pleasurable because of pain.

[@edwebb5467]

This and utilitarianism is ruining the world.

[@c4call]

This seems to be a horrible description of consequentialism or even utilitarianism. The fact that everyone who thinks the Avenue education of philosophy wants to describe either of those 2 philosophies as being separated from the person making the decision, just blows my mind. The goodness of an act is determined not by whether or not it makes the world a better place for whoever. The goodness or badness of an action is determined by the consequences it has on the life of the person making The Choice. Everyone's perception is different. Your perception of someone else's actions may be that their actions are making your life a living hell, but as far as they are concerned their actions are good because they benefit them. It's a basic fact of reality that we can't even get out of the argument of subjectivity. It is inviolable and inevitable that you will hit a brick wall of subjectivity when it comes to determining the goodness or badness of an action. You can't say that the largest number of lives saved is what makes the world a better place. Maybe fewer people living is actually better for the world or at least better for you. Maybe what would make the world a better place is more mouths to feed, or maybe what would make the world a better place for you to live in is fewer mouths defeat but with higher quality of character and intelligence.

[@camden7806]

Well said

[@logicalconclusion5327]

You have highlighted the biggest issue with all 'pure' consequentialist ethical frameworks (and almost all normative ethics categories). Essentially, they have to account for the 'final say'. In other words, whether one places the ability to evaluate and create moral 'oughts' (i.e., normative propositions) in the individual or in society, at the foundation of these systems is the question: who, or what, has the ultimate authority to decide and to morally obligate what is right and wrong? If it is the individual, by what authority is any specific individual's moral rule qualitatively superior to another's when there is moral conflict between the two? If it is society, by what authority is any specific culture and society superior to another? Some may say that it is the right of whoever 'wins' (by persuasion, force, or whatever means), however, that doesn't answer the question -- why does that make that individual or society have any more say on what is morally good or bad and, simultaneously, morally binding (i.e., true and an actual moral rule)? They might say that X is good and since they 'won' I might agree or oblige, but does that make it true?

[@cattycatalina]

Thank you for this! Beautifully explained! A huge help :0 }

[@KingArthur13th]

So Consequentialism is essentially "the ends justify the means"?

[@photon4269]

Can you make one on Rights based approach

[@LOGICZOMBIE]

OBRA MAESTRA

[@Cardinal-Roy-Davis]

Jeannette Pa (Taylor Swift (Lia..B))