Kibura_Iburasa said: nope you won`tYes 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. |
| Life is Fun! Yeah,try chanting that 10,000 times each day! it will mess with your head,and all your pain will disappear |
ryuushogi said: Kibura_Iburasa said: nope you won`tYes 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. Of course, I had no idea you knew me better than myself. A person should not take an ideology to their heart and life if they are not willing to follow it to the end. If I say sacrificing 1 person to save 5 or kill 5 evil people is the right action I mean it, even if its myself. If I say I would give the order to sacrifice a million to save a billion I mean it. You don't take a philosophy if you are not willing to follow it. That makes a person a liar, a fake someone who is weak of will. |
 |
Kibura_Iburasa said: i would believe in your ``strong will`` when i see you sacrificing yourself to kill 5 Evil right know it just some idealOf course, I had no idea you knew me better than myself. A person should not take an ideology to their heart and life if they are not willing to follow it to the end. If I say sacrificing 1 person to save 5 or kill 5 evil people is the right action I mean it, even if its myself. If I say I would give the order to sacrifice a million to save a billion I mean it. You don't take a philosophy if you are not willing to follow it. That makes a person a liar, a fake someone who is weak of will. |
| Life is Fun! Yeah,try chanting that 10,000 times each day! it will mess with your head,and all your pain will disappear |
ryuushogi said: i would believe in your ``strong will`` when i see you sacrificing yourself to kill 5 Evil right know it just some ideal And I'll look to you to save one child whilst letting a dangerous terrorist who murders hundreds of people escape, because morality demands it. |
|
| Other (your vote) Neither, both have flaws. Kantianism: You want to improve the human gene pole to further mankind. So you kill off all those who you feel are negatively affecting the gene pole. Utilitarianism: After slaughtering millions the gene pole is greatly improved. Though in the process millions of people died solely because they were unlucky to have successful gene's. |
 |
Kibura_Iburasa said: isn't saving life better than taking liveAnd I'll look to you to save one child whilst letting a dangerous terrorist who murders hundreds of people escape, because morality demands it. whats the piont of killing that terrorist if we have to sacrifice that 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 |
Kibura_Iburasa said: 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. So you have opinions paralleling those of Al-Qaeda, understood. As for your "ideals" - utilitarianism and kantianism are nothing more than opinions masquerading as transcendent systems. The world is governed by laws, which are not based on morality, as much as people try to insinuate . The world can never be ruled by utilitarianism because utilitarianism is a flawed system that is meaningless to the human ego, just like all other moral systems that collapse when faced with the is-ought dilemma . |
| What I learned with all you said, Kibura: It seems terrorists follow Utilitarianism. |
 |
RandomChampion said: So you have opinions paralleling those of Al-Qaeda, understood. lol whatever you say. RandomChampion said: The world can never be ruled by utilitarianism because utilitarianism is a flawed system that is meaningless to the human ego, just like all other moral systems that collapse when faced with the is-ought dilemma . I agree the world can't work like that but it doesn't require the world to run on those laws. Just requires those in power to use those ideals. One man can send hundreds, thousands to their deaths by order in wartime. The world can be reshaped based on the opinions of a few leading people, just look at Hitler and his cronnies, they changed a whole nation into what they wanted. The people don't need to decide, they all don't even have to have an opinion, the masses are just their to do as required of them and because of how society is structured most will. I didn't hear the American people complain when they dropped the bombs on Japan, why because the outcome was all that mattered not the morality of it. Evaporate a whole city, burn families and women and children to stop a war that would cost many more lives. |
|
lupadim said: What I learned with all you said, Kibura: It seems terrorists follow Utilitarianism. Kibura : One ought to sacrifice a child to kill 5 evil people Terrorist: One ought to sacrifice a child to kill 5 evil people I guess in Kibura's ideal world, the police will be strapping kids with bombs to lure 5 pedophiles and kill them. |
| I choose both; neither is perfect, but both are often useful. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
Kibura_Iburasa said: RandomChampion said: So you have opinions paralleling those of Al-Qaeda, understood. lol whatever you say. RandomChampion said: The world can never be ruled by utilitarianism because utilitarianism is a flawed system that is meaningless to the human ego, just like all other moral systems that collapse when faced with the is-ought dilemma . I agree the world can't work like that but it doesn't require the world to run on those laws. Just requires those in power to use those ideals. One man can send hundreds, thousands to their deaths by order in wartime. The world can be reshaped based on the opinions of a few leading people, just look at Hitler and his cronnies, they changed a whole nation into what they wanted. The people don't need to decide, they all don't even have to have an opinion, the masses are just their to do as required of them and because of how society is structured most will. I didn't hear the American people complain when they dropped the bombs on Japan, why because the outcome was all that mattered not the morality of it. Youre not understanding. "Ideal" utilitarianism is logically unsound concept that cannot be implemented as some objective moral system. Anything else that claims to be utilitarian is just some opinion in which the line can be drawn anywhere . |
RandomChampion said: they can do it as long as they have strong willlupadim said: What I learned with all you said, Kibura: It seems terrorists follow Utilitarianism. Kibura : One ought to sacrifice a child to kill 5 evil people Terrorist: One ought to sacrifice a child to kill 5 evil people I guess in Kibura's ideal world, the police will be strapping kids with bombs to lure 5 pedophiles and kill them. |
| Life is Fun! Yeah,try chanting that 10,000 times each day! it will mess with your head,and all your pain will disappear |
ryuushogi said: RandomChampion said: they can do it as long as they have strong willlupadim said: What I learned with all you said, Kibura: It seems terrorists follow Utilitarianism. Kibura : One ought to sacrifice a child to kill 5 evil people Terrorist: One ought to sacrifice a child to kill 5 evil people I guess in Kibura's ideal world, the police will be strapping kids with bombs to lure 5 pedophiles and kill them. it wouldnt matter how strong or weak their wills are. Kibura would force them to do it to be good and fight evil |
RandomChampion said: "Ideal" utilitarianism is logically unsound concept that cannot be implemented as some objective moral system. Anything else that claims to be utilitarian is just some opinion in which the line can be drawn anywhere . Seemed to me that the whole dropping the bomb on Japan plays pretty well into the idea of the ends justify any morally unsound means. A whole nation agreed to do it and it ended a war by sacrificing numbers that would be less than the cost of a prolonged war. Seems to me had the world adopted this ideal into society it would be much better off. You say its not calculable and its all opinion based? simply base it on numbers and obvious best options. A ship carrying a hundred refugees also carries a deadly currently not curable disease and is heading for the mainland. Do you let it land and risk spreading the disease or sink the ship and sacrifice the people for the greater good. Obvious answer is already dictated if you take out morality, human feeling out of it. lupadim said: 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. Love how people seem to forget the original idea of the thread was to announce what social philosophy you agree with more and your own opinions. We were given two options to choose I have yet to see you RandomChamp actually put forward your opinion based on the original question of this thread. RandomChampion said: ryuushogi said: RandomChampion said: they can do it as long as they have strong willlupadim said: What I learned with all you said, Kibura: It seems terrorists follow Utilitarianism. Kibura : One ought to sacrifice a child to kill 5 evil people Terrorist: One ought to sacrifice a child to kill 5 evil people I guess in Kibura's ideal world, the police will be strapping kids with bombs to lure 5 pedophiles and kill them. it wouldnt matter how strong or weak their wills are. Kibura would force them to do it to be good and fight evil Modern Terrorism is mainly based on misguided religious fundamentals. A true system would be based on logic and cold numbers, survival and strength of the human race, not petty selfish rivalries between made up religions. You can't monitor the love or will of a god, you can with human numbers. Lure pedo's out with bomb children lol what, now who is been childish. The system would simply kill all caught pedophiles immediately, simple, effective and the world is better for it, same goes for terrorists. If a nation starts a war, immediately decimate their nation and numbers, assimilate those you can and rid the world of the rest. Its really no different from a prolonged and messy war just far more effective. As I said dropping the bomb was the correct course of action to end a war at the cost of morality, they could have claimed it inhuman to use nukes and fought another 10 year war at the cost of thousands more lives, hundreds more accounts of war atrocities and so on. |
|
| Machiavellianism is the best, even if similar to Utilitarianism there is a slight difference. But my behavior sometimes fits Kantianism, like I would never betray my principles (of course, except for extreme cases where really I get nothing out of them). Having principles and following them thoroughly would actually be Kantianism itself. Each of these can be mixed with others to make a better system, I'd rather have my own than pick one. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Kibura_Iburasa said: Seemed to me that the whole dropping the bomb on Japan plays pretty well into the idea of the ends justify any morally unsound means. A whole nation agreed to do it and it ended a war by sacrificing numbers that would be less than the cost of a prolonged war. Seems to me had the world adopted this ideal into society it would be much better off. You say its not calculable and its all opinion based? simply base it on numbers and obvious best options. A ship carrying a hundred refugees also carries a deadly currently not curable disease and is heading for the mainland. Do you let it land and risk spreading the disease or sink the ship and sacrifice the people for the greater good. Obvious answer is already dictated if you take out morality, human feeling out of it. Notice how I did not mention anything about the mere concept of “ends justify the means” in isolated situations. The whole concept of ends justifying means, by itself, can certainly exist, and is independent of ideal utilitarianism. You fail to realize that utilitarianism is the idea of maximizing “utility” (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean). Lives dont necessarily equate to utility, resources arent necessarily utility, etc. Human life has no inherent value, so your basing everything on 2 vs 1 life is, again, your arbitrary line, etc. Kibura_Iburasa said: Love how people seem to forget the original idea of the thread was to announce what social philosophy you agree with more and your own opinions. We were given two options to choose I have yet to see you RandomChamp actually put forward your opinion based on the original question of this thread. This is supposed to be Casual Discussion, not “let’s go around the table and ask everyone their opinions”. What I’m writing pertains to the discussion. The reason I did not care to respond directly to the OP is because, as usual, Lupadim decided to put a bunch of loaded concepts and inaccurate definitions in his topic lol. Ive gone down the path of responding to Luapdim posts before, and it’s something that I prefer to avoid. Kibura_Iburasa said: Modern Terrorism is mainly based on misguided religious fundamentals. Believing that pedophiles are evil is a religious thought itself, which is why youre basically no different in logical consistency. Kibura_Iburasa said: A true system would be based on logic and cold numbers, survival and strength of the human race, not petty selfish rivalries between made up religions. You have no evidence that there is a transcendent imperative towards which the human race should strive towards. What you are telling me is nothing more than your logically unsound belief. Youre talking about logic while completely ignoring it yourself. Kibura_Iburasa said: You can't monitor the love or will of a god, you can with human numbers. Doesn’t change the fact that it’s nothing more than your arbitrary judgment. Kibura_Iburasa said: Lure pedo's out with bomb children lol what, now who is been childish. Try attacking the argument, not the person, for once? Kibura_Iburasa said: The system would simply kill all caught pedophiles immediately, simple, effective and the world is better for it, same goes for terrorists. If a nation starts a war, immediately decimate their nation and numbers, assimilate those you can and rid the world of the rest. Its really no different from a prolonged and messy war just far more effective. As I said dropping the bomb was the correct course of action to end a war at the cost of morality, they could have claimed it inhuman to use nukes and fought another 10 year war at the cost of thousands more lives, hundreds more accounts of war atrocities and so on. Effective in terms of what? Whatever you say it’s effective in terms of, it’s still your own value, not an inherent value (because a measureable value is subjective, by definition. Inhumanity, atrocity, etc, don’t mean anything except in the context of (non-transcendent) law. |
| Well, firstly, your defintion is pretty lax - Kantian ethics are very, very strict. According to him, lying is the ultimate sin (it's a corollary to his "truthfulness is the ultimate good" schtick) and to lie in any situation is the height of moral transgression. In general, strict Kantian ethics are absurd in the real world - they assume that there is no way to calculate the ends of any action and therefore, actions should only be judged on the strength of their moral consistency. The flaw here, of course, is the assumption that there is no way to figure out the consequences of any given action. At the same time, it's not like strict utilitarianism is much better. Doing whatever you want to justify the ends, and ignoring other people's wants and needs in the process isn't exactly the ideal way to go about doing things, even if it might result in a net gain for society (after all, if I sacrifice a hundred people for the good of a thousand, why should the hundred people support me? to them their lives aren't any less important than the thousand lives that I'm saving). Middle grounds are great. It's good to both be consistent with your morals while ensuring that you are acting for the sake of reaching a goal rather than blindly acting for the sake of moral consistency. I wouldn't lean towards either, because trying to lean towards one extreme over another is generally what causes people to fuck up in spectacular ways. |
| What I get from your argument RC. Your (mine) opinions on whats right or wrong are your own therefor wrong. Meanwhile your opinion is any more sound because? its own own opinion that these ideals won't work. Each statement you made is based on your own ideas. RandomChampion said: You fail to realize that utilitarianism is the idea of maximizing “utility” (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean). Lives dont necessarily equate to utility, resources arent necessarily utility, etc. Human life has no inherent value, so your basing everything on 2 vs 1 life is, again, your arbitrary line, etc. Resource is indeed a utility and it is quite simple to look at objectively. A crippled man will not give as much to a society as a young healthy one, therefor give the crippled mans resources to the healthy will increase that mans contribution. Humans have no value only in numbers and before you say thats my opinion. You wouldn't trade 3 cars for 1 of the same type. You would however trade 3 weaker less useful cars for a new and working one same as you would trade 3 cars for 10. It doesn't take rocket science as long as you have a grasp of the obvious utility of things. RandomChampion said: Doesn’t change the fact that it’s nothing more than your arbitrary judgment. Thats your opinion pal, no more right or wrong than my own. |
|
Kibura_Iburasa said: What I get from your argument. Your opinions on whats right or wrong are your own therefor wrong. Meanwhile your opinion is any more sound because? its own own opinion that these ideals won't work. Each statement you made is based on your own ideas. All I did was make a comment on your view – I did not say that it was right or wrong. You then went on to post about ideal utilitarianism. Now, all I am doing is highlighting your faulty logic. Kibura_Iburasa said: Resource is indeed a utility and it is quite simple to look at objectively. A crippled man will not give as much to a society as a young healthy one, therefor give the crippled mans resources to the healthy will increase that mans contribution. I understand that resources can be measured….utilitarianism is more than simply measuring resources, though. Utilitarianism entails providing moral grounds for action based on “usefulness” (again, whatever that means LOL). Resources take up space. Actors making decisions is a function of time. Measuring of resources (aka space) at a certain time is not enough to consider the space-time dependent utilitarianism objective. In fact, it has nothign to do with utilitarianism kibura_iburasa said: Humans have no value only in numbers and before you say thats my opinion. You wouldn't trade 3 cars for 1 of the same type. You would however trade 3 weaker less useful cars for a new and working one. It doesn't take rocket science as long as you have a grasp of the obvious utility of things. It has nothing to do with cars, stop making yourself look foolish by comparing cars to humans or whatever lol. The only thing that matters here is that you value something like number of lives over autonomy of the individual. Neither of these are inherently right or wrong views – but that exactly is it! Youre the one who is touting 2vs1 as the basis of moral action. |
RandomChampionMay 22, 2014 2:33 PM
| Its hard for an opponent to bring into question another's opinions when they keep it to themselves but of course you probably already knew this. Tell me because I would love to hear what exactly your opinions on this subject are beyond you know, just discrediting me which seems to become a little of your pass time. Although im glad this time you tried it face to face rather than behind my back on some wiki page. As an American you don't have much to stand on as your own government supports such ideals as my own. In fact you yourself defended the actions of the American Government and military in developing countries. In fact policies and actions that fall much in line of the idea that one country knows the greater good of other people and inflicts their ideals onto others forcefully. So please enlighten me on your ideology, please so I may not be at this disadvantage you have me at currently. Its far easier to pick at others when you keep your cards hidden after all. Enlighten me on the true universal truth of the world you have. |
|
Kibura_Iburasa said: Its hard for an opponent to bring into question another's opinions when they keep it to themselves but of course you probably already knew this. Tell me because I would love to hear what exactly your opinions on this subject are beyond you know, just discrediting me which seems to become a little of your pass time. Although im glad this time you tried it face to face rather than behind my back on some wiki page. As an American you don't have much to stand on as your own government supports such ideals as my own. In fact you yourself defended the actions of the American Government and military in developing countries. In fact policies and actions that fall much in line of the idea that one country knows the greater good of other people and inflicts their ideals onto others forcefully. So please enlighten me on your ideology, please so I may not be at this disadvantage you have me at currently. Its far easier to pick at others when you keep your cards hidden after all. Enlighten me on the true universal truth of the world you have. The matrix is real.... |
|
| i prefer utilitarianism |
| RRRRRRRRRR |
Kibura_Iburasa said: Its hard for an opponent to bring into question another's opinions when they keep it to themselves but of course you probably already knew this. Tell me because I would love to hear what exactly your opinions on this subject are beyond you know, just discrediting me which seems to become a little of your pass time. Although im glad this time you tried it face to face rather than behind my back on some wiki page. As an American you don't have much to stand on as your own government supports such ideals as my own. In fact you yourself defended the actions of the American Government and military in developing countries. In fact policies and actions that fall much in line of the idea that one country knows the greater good of other people and inflicts their ideals onto others forcefully. So please enlighten me on your ideology, please so I may not be at this disadvantage you have me at currently. Its far easier to pick at others when you keep your cards hidden after all. My opinion on the Kantianism and Utilitarianism is that they are both useless as they fail the is-ought dilemma. OP isnt clear and consistent enough for me to respond to. Good luck questioning my view. I see you are adept at using poor and dishonest debate tactics....ad hominem, putting words in my mouth, bringing up irrelevant topics, etc. In any case, regardless of what my opinion is, you shouldnt need to know my views to defend your own....lol |
Astros477 said: The matrix is real.... Nah I already knew that....wait which matrix? RC I have things to say and will eventually say them once im done with FF give me an hour or so. Quick thing I will say though is I call into question the legitimacy of your opinions when you yourself defend those very ideals in the other thread. -> Letting someone/people decide that one value is greater than another is not good. Its impossible to work on a system like that. ->Meanwhile supports America's meddling in other sovereign countries affairs because they don't know any better and because "America is strong so they can do what they want" argument. Remember that, really not supporting those ideals there. American lives are worth more than some foreigners right? because of terrorism? hmm similar? You can't have it both ways either you support that ideology or you live a lie in your own nation. But again give me an hour or so. *Arnold voice* I'll be back. |
|
cabacc2 said: utilitarianism isnt about usefulness, its about minimizing suffering and maximizing happiness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism this is the utilitarianism i am referring to even so you can make it about whatever you want. The fact of the matter is that it is impossible to calculate how something contributes to “utility” (nothing more, and nothing less – just plain utility). Happiness is subjective. The value of anything that can be observed is never objective – empirical = subjective, by definition. There is no expert (and never will be) who can come up with a calculation involving maximum happiness (that is, just happiness, without regard for time, etc). So, when you claim that we should govern actions – actions that influence everything (as any moral system seeks to be applicable to), including the life of an individual – should be based on a measure of happiness, suffering, “utility”, whatever, then what youre actually doing is measuring based on pure arbitrariness. Kibura_Iburasa said: Astros477 said: The matrix is real.... Nah I already knew that....wait which matrix? RC I have things to say and will eventually say them once im done with FF give me an hour or so. Quick thing I will say though is I call into question the legitimacy of your opinions when you yourself defend those very ideals in the other thread. -> Letting someone/people decide that one value is greater than another is not good. Its impossible to work on a system like that. ->Meanwhile supports America's meddling in other sovereign countries affairs because they don't know any better and because "America is strong so they can do what they want" argument. Remember that, really not supporting those ideals there. American lives are worth more than some foreigners right? because of terrorism? hmm similar? You can't have it both ways either you support that ideology or you live a lie in your own nation. But again give me an hour or so. i never said that "letting someone/people decide that one value is greater than other " is not "good". I dont throw terms like that around in a discussion such as this. I also never support America's meddling in other sovereign countries affairs....again, me saying that it's not "wrong"=/= me supporting it. And, even if i did support it, I would say that like it, not that it's right. You would have understood this back in the last topic if you read properly - I do not think anything is morally right or wrong in the context of these discussions. All I am doing is disproving you claims, with regards to logic, which you are obviously unable to defend and therefore need to make up nonsense about other topics .... |
RandomChampionMay 22, 2014 3:14 PM
beavis2323 said: Why?i prefer utilitarianism |
|
Kolnikov said: So basically, let's say someone is plotting to kill you.Honestly, I don't care about intention as long as it's working for the best. If people are just egoistic, I don't care as long as it's working for the benefit of the person itself and the one related. In a economic exchange, for example, we are moved by self interest. But if it's working properly and both parts can have profit/benefit, that's fine for me. That person tries to throw a brick on your head. But that person somehow misses. You're basically saying that you wouldn't want that person arrested because his/her's action didn't cause any damage. |
|
Kolnikov said: Of course it won't, but why should you punish the person if he/she had no intention?lupadim said: Kolnikov said: So basically, let's say someone is plotting to kill you.Honestly, I don't care about intention as long as it's working for the best. If people are just egoistic, I don't care as long as it's working for the benefit of the person itself and the one related. In a economic exchange, for example, we are moved by self interest. But if it's working properly and both parts can have profit/benefit, that's fine for me. That person tries to throw a brick on your head. But that person somehow misses. You're basically saying that you wouldn't want that person arrested because his/her's action didn't cause any damage. Impossible to know the true intentions. We have to work with results. If someone kill me without the real intention, that will not change the fact that I'm dead. Come on, what is the point of arresting someone? It is NOT a punishment. It is something like "Hey, you are too dangerous, so we are going to lock you there. Think at what you did". If the person had no intention to kill, what's the point? "Oh, I know you are not dangerous and that you would never kill anyone, and I know that your jail mates will rape you so much that you will probably become an actually dangerous person, but fuck you thats Utilitarianism bitch!!!" Simply ridiculous. Kantianism would give the right sentence to the right person. |
|
| definitely Kant, while his theory is a lot more abstract and not as easy to apply to everday life, it defintely holds more worth in my opinion. |
| Bokura wa Minna Ikiteiru |
| I do think intentions matter to some degree but not nearly as much as results. Some of the greatest atrocities are committed under the best of intentions, so often times intentions don't amount to anything when it comes to morality. A moral system that does not consider the results of its actions is useless in my eyes. I'm generally not a fan of Kantian ethics. It is far too rigid and idealistic to ever practically work, and often times a white lie goes a long way towards keeping everyone's sanity. |
kingcity20 said: Oh for the love of -_- nvm gotta love MAL |
Kolnikov said: Are you even aware of what I mean with "intentions"?That's ridiculous as well, because the people can have bad intentions, but if he or she isn't putting his intentions in practice there's nothing you can do about it. First of all, you won't know the intentions. Second, even if you know you can't punish someone that is following the society rules. Even if it's by accident, if you don't work with results you can't work because we are not in Minority Report. I am not talking about inner feelings. I am talking about the PURPOSE of an action. About something that is going to be put in practice. Dictionary said: the end or object intended; purpose. ^ That's what the dictionary states about intention. So plz. Just stop. Or try to give proper arguments without using the Strawman fallacy. |
|
| This isn't Kant versus Utilitarianism. This is more like virtue ethics versus teleological ethics. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| i will go for Utilitarianism, or the consequences side as you put it because it seems good that even if my intentions are bad they can have a good outcome |
| Other Peoples actions are obviously good or bad based on the results HOWEVER whether they are a good or bad person weighs more on their intentions. Yet if they are fully in negligence such as drunk driving killing someone by accident as result of actions with no bad intent then it obviously is their fault. Also a persons value as good or bad depends on how they react to the results. If something bad happens even though things went to plan then they should feel bad. If they do not feel bad then they are more bad for not adapting and ignoring feelings of others. So essentially its a mix of both and case by case based. |
shintai88 said: You should act like that with your devianart on your signature.I am mankind's saviour, everything I do is for the benefit of mankind. j0x said: But that is rare to happen. It is way more common that you have good intentions but the outcome ends up being bad. Thus, you should logically opt for Kantianismi will go for Utilitarianism, or the consequences side as you put it because it seems good that even if my intentions are bad they can have a good outcome |
|
More topics from this board
» The level of NoLifer / NEET / Hiki you are?IpreferEcchi - Apr 22 |
23 |
by Dracowyn
»»
13 seconds ago |
|
» Do you enjoy nature?Kamikaze_404 - Apr 23 |
25 |
by Ex-Aid
»»
12 minutes ago |
|
» Are you a slow or fast typier on a computer???DesuMaiden - Apr 19 |
41 |
by -Jahra
»»
20 minutes ago |
|
» Is it a good idea to stay relatively anonymous online?DesuMaiden - Apr 20 |
28 |
by vasipi4946
»»
34 minutes ago |
|
» Would you consider becoming a vegatarain, maybe Vegan ? ( 1 2 )SyrupPastryNice - Apr 10 |
68 |
by -Jahra
»»
46 minutes ago |