| Kantianism: Your action is good or bad based on your intention. One should act out of respect for the moral law. Lying can be bad or good, it just depends on why you're lying. If you are lying to cheat someone it is bad, but if you are lying to avoid hurting someone, as example, then it would be a good action. Utilitarianism: Your action is good or bad, it depends on the final result. The consequences. If your lie ended up hurting someone, it is a bad action, doesn't matter your intention. Now if you had bad intentions but it turns out with a good consequence, then your action is good. So, what side do you choose? Intentions or consequences? Or maybe other? I am personally for Kantianism. Because a good outcome is not truly good without a good intention. |
 |
| Utilitarianism. Its the only we humans will learn from our actions. |
| What if you end up helping someone but hurt someone else at the same time? |
   |
kami_desu said: Accordingly to Kantianism: Depends on your intention.What if you end up helping someone but hurt someone else at the same time? Accordingly to Utilitarianism: It depends on the amount of happiness generated out of that action |
|
| Utilitarianism. Ultimately the consequences are the most important. |
lupadim said: That's not utilitarianism, it's Aristotelism/Teleology.Utilitarianism: Your action is good or bad, it depends on the final result. The consequences. If your lie ended up hurting someone, it is a bad action, doesn't matter your intention. Now if you had bad intentions but it turns out with a good consequence, then your action is good. |
  |
yazio said: " According to both Bentham and Mill, utilitarianism is considered to be a hedonistic approach only if the results of an action do not directly cause a negative impact on others."lupadim said: That's not utilitarianism, it's Aristotelism/Teleology.Utilitarianism: Your action is good or bad, it depends on the final result. The consequences. If your lie ended up hurting someone, it is a bad action, doesn't matter your intention. Now if you had bad intentions but it turns out with a good consequence, then your action is good. |
|
lupadim said: yazio said: " According to both Bentham and Mill, utilitarianism is considered to be a hedonistic approach only if the results of an action do not directly cause a negative impact on others."lupadim said: That's not utilitarianism, it's Aristotelism/Teleology.Utilitarianism: Your action is good or bad, it depends on the final result. The consequences. If your lie ended up hurting someone, it is a bad action, doesn't matter your intention. Now if you had bad intentions but it turns out with a good consequence, then your action is good. Since it seems you got it from here Wikipedia said: In A Fragment on Government, Bentham says, "it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong" |
|
| I give many actions notes of good and evil, regardless of the intention or the outcome (outcome as used by the OP) Having a good intention does not absolve you of your evil action Having a poor intention does not devalue your good action They're separate pieces that you can put together in a sort of line, provided you clarify the right and wrong of actions without the circumstantial result This explanation doesn't feel adequate to me |
| Want to talk? Club! "Would you like an anti-psychotic?" *Bonus points if you leave a comment about the meaning of my signature.* |
Mogu-sama said: So, let's say I try to kill you but end up failing. Shouldn't I be punished for my intention? Or are you going to wait until I manage to kill you or somehow hurt you?I give many actions notes of good and evil, regardless of the intention or the outcome (outcome as used by the OP) Having a good intention does not absolve you of your evil action Having a poor intention does not devalue your good action They're separate pieces that you can put together in a sort of line, provided you clarify the right and wrong of actions without the circumstantial result |
|
lupadim said: Trying to do something is still doing something, just not in the way you desiredSo, let's say I try to kill you but end up failing. Shouldn't I be punished for my intention? Or are you going to wait until I manage to kill you or somehow hurt you? I wouldn't only punish you, punishment alone is a waste of time. Restrain you, find out why you want to kill me, take it from there |
| Want to talk? Club! "Would you like an anti-psychotic?" *Bonus points if you leave a comment about the meaning of my signature.* |
| The ends justify the means, Utilitarianism. The other one is too touchy feeling and totally meaningless in the face of action, reaction and consequence. The intention doesn't matter what matters is the outcome. Kill millions to save billions, good or evil doesn't matter what matters is the outcome is justified in cold hard numbers. |
 |
| The first one, for me, the intention always matters. |
 |
| Where did you pull your definition of Kantianism from? Isn't Kantianism a universal law that states that "I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law". Meaning that there is a universal law that lying is bad. Period. Therefore, you have a moral duty to obey this law and never lie. And not your definition that lying can be bad or good depending on your intentions. |
 |
Kibura_Iburasa said: Can numbers even measure how much a life is worth?The ends justify the means, Utilitarianism. The other one is too touchy feeling and totally meaningless in the face of action, reaction and consequence. The intention doesn't matter what matters is the outcome. Kill millions to save billions, good or evil doesn't matter what matters is the outcome is justified in cold hard numbers. |
|
Soren333 said: Where did you pull your definition of Kantianism from? Isn't Kantianism a universal law that states that "I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law". Meaning that there is a universal law that lying is bad. Period. Therefore, you have a moral duty to obey this law and never lie. And not your definition that lying can be bad or good depending on your intentions. Care to comment lupadim? |
|
lupadim said: Kibura_Iburasa said: Can numbers even measure how much a life is worth?The ends justify the means, Utilitarianism. The other one is too touchy feeling and totally meaningless in the face of action, reaction and consequence. The intention doesn't matter what matters is the outcome. Kill millions to save billions, good or evil doesn't matter what matters is the outcome is justified in cold hard numbers. But what if you're killing people under good intentions? Kibura is saving more people! Doesn't that make his intentions good? |
|
kami_desu said: If I am killing with good intentions, doesn't that mean I am trying to achieve a good outcome? Maybe even Utilitarianism would support my choice?lupadim said: Kibura_Iburasa said: Can numbers even measure how much a life is worth?The ends justify the means, Utilitarianism. The other one is too touchy feeling and totally meaningless in the face of action, reaction and consequence. The intention doesn't matter what matters is the outcome. Kill millions to save billions, good or evil doesn't matter what matters is the outcome is justified in cold hard numbers. But what if you're killing people under good intentions? Kibura is saving more people! Doesn't that make his intentions good? |
|
lupadim said: I wouldn't know, but the people over at the insurance companies sure are trying.Can numbers even measure how much a life is worth? OT: Utilitarianism. Seems to make more sense in the long run. (Albeit only as a basis, because I don't think that any philosophy should be applied to real life as-is) |
 |
JD2411 said: cabacc2 said: it depends on the personlupadim said: 2 > 1, end of the story.Kibura_Iburasa said: Can numbers even measure how much a life is worth?The ends justify the means, Utilitarianism. The other one is too touchy feeling and totally meaningless in the face of action, reaction and consequence. The intention doesn't matter what matters is the outcome. Kill millions to save billions, good or evil doesn't matter what matters is the outcome is justified in cold hard numbers. would you let 5 child rapists die so you could save 1 child? That is entirely different. The rapists are a threat to society. |
lupadim said: kami_desu said: If I am killing with good intentions, doesn't that mean I am trying to achieve a good outcome? Maybe even Utilitarianism would support my choice?lupadim said: Kibura_Iburasa said: Can numbers even measure how much a life is worth?The ends justify the means, Utilitarianism. The other one is too touchy feeling and totally meaningless in the face of action, reaction and consequence. The intention doesn't matter what matters is the outcome. Kill millions to save billions, good or evil doesn't matter what matters is the outcome is justified in cold hard numbers. But what if you're killing people under good intentions? Kibura is saving more people! Doesn't that make his intentions good? When you say "Can numbers even measure how much a life is worth" You're talking as if taking a life is never acceptable no matter what, but here you are, saying that killing can be justified. But maybe you're thinking differently. I'm just using what I know about you from other discussions I've read. |
|
JD2411 said: they are still 5 human beings The ends justify the means its not only a numbers game thats one example. This example is not killing 5 people over 1 child, the child is irrelevant. The outcome would be to rid the world of 5 evil people, justifying any action you take against them as the ends will justify the means. A better example would be would you sacrifice 1 kid to kill 5 pedo/rapists. The answer is yes because the value of the evil killed outweighs the value of 1 good person. |
|
| Mixture of both, leaning towards Utilitarianism (this word man, this word). Altough I mix into my decisicion a good amount of egoism. Cause nothing is more important than me. Bitches. |
| Kantianism i suppose. |
| A mix of both really. Depending on the context. Utilitarianism is only really a tenable philosophy until a certain level of dickery. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Soren333 said: Soren333 said: Where did you pull your definition of Kantianism from? Isn't Kantianism a universal law that states that "I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law". Meaning that there is a universal law that lying is bad. Period. Therefore, you have a moral duty to obey this law and never lie. And not your definition that lying can be bad or good depending on your intentions. Care to comment lupadim? All discussion thus far is pointless unless you address this issue lupa-chan. If you're definition of Kantianism is false then every response that you are getting here will be abiding to a false definition. |
|
Soren333 said: Here it is: *throws a bag of attention*Soren333 said: Soren333 said: Where did you pull your definition of Kantianism from? Isn't Kantianism a universal law that states that "I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law". Meaning that there is a universal law that lying is bad. Period. Therefore, you have a moral duty to obey this law and never lie. And not your definition that lying can be bad or good depending on your intentions. Care to comment lupadim? All discussion thus far is pointless unless you address this issue lupa-chan. If you're definition of Kantianism is false then every response that you are getting here will be abiding to a false definition. BarryManilow said: But usually, when Utilitarianism is not in the dickery level, it usually agrees with KantianismA mix of both really. Depending on the context. Utilitarianism is only really a tenable philosophy until a certain level of dickery. |
|
| Now you're just being lazy. If I'm wrong please correct me, as you've always done to many other people. |
|
Avoiding the question won't validate your arguments. Your definition of Kant is incorrect, Lupadim. No amount of joking around will change that. |
| Somewhere, there is an unplugged toaster sitting on a Coleman stove. Does it feel lonely? |
lupadim said: This was exactly done following WWI, a value had to be assigned for human life so as to demand reparations (mostly from Germany)Can numbers even measure how much a life is worth? |
| Want to talk? Club! "Would you like an anti-psychotic?" *Bonus points if you leave a comment about the meaning of my signature.* |
| Instead of calling it Kantianism & Utilitarianism, renaming it 1 & 2 should appease people. Also, this warranted a response: lupadim said: Can numbers even measure how much a life is worth? Sure people do it all the time when they buy life insurance. |
| idealism to answer your question tho xD Kantianism. It's more of a 'golden rule' philosophy, one's action should be repeatable by all and that is what makes it moral. I definitely live by that...it's an effective approach imo. intent does matter, it can't make an action moral but lack of good intent can take the positive morality out of what would appear on the surface to be a good thing to do, therefor i must say utilitarians are reptilians. |
xMizu_May 22, 2014 10:26 AM
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
Kibura_Iburasa said: you wont be saying this if that kid happen to be youThe ends justify the means its not only a numbers game thats one example. This example is not killing 5 people over 1 child, the child is irrelevant. The outcome would be to rid the world of 5 evil people, justifying any action you take against them as the ends will justify the means. A better example would be would you sacrifice 1 kid to kill 5 pedo/rapists. The answer is yes because the value of the evil killed outweighs the value of 1 good person. |
| Life is Fun! Yeah,try chanting that 10,000 times each day! it will mess with your head,and all your pain will disappear |
cabacc2 said: what abt his parents they would be sad and they are part of societyThat doesnt change the fact that it would be beneficial for society to sascrifice the child. |
| Life is Fun! Yeah,try chanting that 10,000 times each day! it will mess with your head,and all your pain will disappear |
cabacc2 said: ryuushogi said: That doesnt change the fact that it would be beneficial for society to sascrifice the child.Kibura_Iburasa said: you wont be saying this if that kid happen to be youThe ends justify the means its not only a numbers game thats one example. This example is not killing 5 people over 1 child, the child is irrelevant. The outcome would be to rid the world of 5 evil people, justifying any action you take against them as the ends will justify the means. A better example would be would you sacrifice 1 kid to kill 5 pedo/rapists. The answer is yes because the value of the evil killed outweighs the value of 1 good person. do you really consider sterilizing unwanted trouble makers as 'beneficial?' even that is a necessary evil. sacrificing someone to get them is just adding another evil on top of everything...it isn't really helping the situation at all. better to live by a more universal standard... |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
Soren333 said: Now you're just being lazy. If I'm wrong please correct me, as you've always done to many other people. Nonyflah said: *sigh*, it is just a matter of interpretationAvoiding the question won't validate your arguments. Your definition of Kant is incorrect, Lupadim. No amount of joking around will change that. While you can interpret it as "Never ever lie", you can also interpret it this way |
|
Kibura_Iburasa said: The worst thing is that you don't even know what you are talking about.The ends justify the means its not only a numbers game thats one example. This example is not killing 5 people over 1 child, the child is irrelevant. The outcome would be to rid the world of 5 evil people, justifying any action you take against them as the ends will justify the means. A better example would be would you sacrifice 1 kid to kill 5 pedo/rapists. The answer is yes because the value of the evil killed outweighs the value of 1 good person. What is more worthy saving? An adult or a kid? They are just numbers, right? So they are equal? Under a Utilitarian point of view: No. The kid will live more years, so it is better to save the kid. But wait! The adult is a genius researching for the cure of cancer, and the kid may not even get a job. So we should save the adult. But the adult has cancer. And he will die within three weeks. What if he can't accomplish the cure? The kid should be saved. But as far as we know, the kid lives in a dangerous place, so he/she may die within some days. On the other hand, when the adult is not researching cancer, he works as a cop near the kid's place, so he is exposed to the same danger. So as you see, Utilitarianism considers way more possibilities... Your logic is just wrong. |
|
Kibura_Iburasa said: A better example would be would you sacrifice 1 kid to kill 5 pedo/rapists. The answer is yes because the value of the evil killed outweighs the value of 1 good person. lol nice opinion there that's not exactly how we do things in the free world though |
cabacc2 said: OnlyEpix said: our scenario says that its beneficial. Read it again, we defined it that way.cabacc2 said: ryuushogi said: That doesnt change the fact that it would be beneficial for society to sascrifice the child.Kibura_Iburasa said: you wont be saying this if that kid happen to be youThe ends justify the means its not only a numbers game thats one example. This example is not killing 5 people over 1 child, the child is irrelevant. The outcome would be to rid the world of 5 evil people, justifying any action you take against them as the ends will justify the means. A better example would be would you sacrifice 1 kid to kill 5 pedo/rapists. The answer is yes because the value of the evil killed outweighs the value of 1 good person. do you really consider sterilizing unwanted trouble makers as 'beneficial?' even that is a necessary evil. sacrificing someone to get them is just adding another evil on top of everything...it isn't really helping the situation at all. better to live by a more universal standard... okay, silly scenario then. |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
lupadim said: The worst thing is that you don't even know what you are talking about. What is more worthy saving? An adult or a kid? They are just numbers, right? So they are equal? Under a Utilitarian point of view: No. The kid will live more years, so it is better to save the kid. But wait! The adult is a genius researching for the cure of cancer, and the kid may not even get a job. So we should save the adult. So as you see, Utilitarianism considers way more possibilities... Your logic is just wrong. Now whose been dumb. The answer is you. You don't decide the rules of Utilitarianism, who is to say you have to take into account the fact the kid lives longer? thats a bullshit excuse to save a child because of morality trying to justify its reasoning using Utilitarianism. Not to mention you have changed the example to fit your argument which is poor at best. This example is is 1 child's life worth that over killing off 5 pedophiles. So lets actually use that argument, not change it to one man who is researching cancer, your argument doesn't even make sense. RandomChampion said: Kibura_Iburasa said: A better example would be would you sacrifice 1 kid to kill 5 pedo/rapists. The answer is yes because the value of the evil killed outweighs the value of 1 good person. lol nice opinion there that's not exactly how we do things in the free world though Thanks genius thats why its a hypothetical world situation if you haven't seen we don't actually live in a world ruled by either of these ideals but thanks for...wait what are you adding? that this way of thinking isn't current in the real world, thanks could never have guessed that. Is anyone willing to actually make sense or should I start handing out napkins? for all that bullshit coming out of your mouths. ryuushogi said: Kibura_Iburasa said: you wont be saying this if that kid happen to be youThe ends justify the means its not only a numbers game thats one example. This example is not killing 5 people over 1 child, the child is irrelevant. The outcome would be to rid the world of 5 evil people, justifying any action you take against them as the ends will justify the means. A better example would be would you sacrifice 1 kid to kill 5 pedo/rapists. The answer is yes because the value of the evil killed outweighs the value of 1 good person. Yes I would. My existence is not benefiting humanity in anyway sacrificing it to do something greater or rid the world of a higher number of evil people is a sound objective. |
|
More topics from this board
» Open Relationship ( 1 2 3 4 5 )rrosicni - Oct 4, 2019 |
203 |
by LoveYourSmile
»»
3 minutes ago |
|
» What's your favorite two color combination?SoldierDream - Mar 5, 2018 |
45 |
by starshiiine
»»
10 minutes ago |
|
» How to not be worried about somethingvasipi4946 - 4 hours ago |
17 |
by Taiyaa
»»
15 minutes ago |
|
» Has anyone here tried learning an artificial language?Malkshake - Jun 14 |
36 |
by DreamWindow
»»
17 minutes ago |
|
» Why do people hate themselves and this world so much?SmugMiri - 5 hours ago |
25 |
by SmugSatoko
»»
17 minutes ago |