1381 réponses à ce sujet

[Annihilator27]

Phaedon wrote...

One reason that they can't be defended too well is the fact that it has been around two and a half millenias since utilitarianism as a valid moral code has been violently kicked to death and proven wrong.

And I am not exaggerating.

AdmiralCheez wrote...

only they're not funny and they're legitimately threatening.

Not an avid reader of the Invasion comics, are we.

Invasion lmao

[Sisterofshane]

The problem that I have with Cerberus is not it's mantra, heck, it's not even it's method (come on, how many people here supported what happened in the end of DA2 without even batting an eyelash?).

No, the problem that I see with Cerberus and with TIM is the pure arrogance they display.  As if they are the only beings in the universe that know what is best for humanity.  That's also the problem with the current council, and many governments in general.

Truly, that is the problem with the Reapers themselves.  They believe themselves so great, so right that rather then give the choice, they would rather force us into submission.  How many of us would voluntarily submit to Ascension if it was offered by the Reapers, rather than forced upon us?

Anyone here claiming that they are so wise and without fault as to know with certainty what path we should take as a species (such as TIM) is just begging to partake in a fall from grace (just as TIM has).

[didymos1120]

SandTrout wrote...

 In ME, the Xeno-national oragnizations operate on the principal that assimilation is intrinsically not possible between the different species. This is a true premise because interbreeding is not possible.

It's an unjustified premise.  Assimilation is not the same thing as interbreeding, nor have you demonstrated that the latter is required for cultural assimilation between any two given species.

Modifié par didymos1120, 12 novembre 2011 - 05:57 .

[Dean_the_Young]

didymos1120 wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

 In ME, the Xeno-national oragnizations operate on the principal that assimilation is intrinsically not possible between the different species. This is a true premise because interbreeding is not possible.

It's an unjustified premise.  Assimilation is not the same thing as interbreeding, nor have you demonstrated that the latter is required for cultural assimilation between any two given species.

Case in point, the Drell-Hanar relationship.

[DarkDragon777]

sponge56 wrote...
  The Alliance is run by elected officials who are voted into their respective positions, who elected the Illusive Man?  His funders trust he will act with humanity's best interests, but I doubt they know or have a say on a ything that he actually does.

Oh, yes, because we know people who are elected are automatically better than people who aren't...NOT.<_<


History has proved this wrong, buddy boy. Most of our great leaders weren't legitimately elected. They came to power because they were strong enough to take it.    A lot elected officials are cowards.



Now, aside from that. The Illusive Man is Cerberus' leader because he founded the organization. Not really hard to figure out. This is another eason why I believe Cerberus is superior to the Alliance. Their leader is always obeyed. The Alliance has had lots of..... problems......

[Phaedon]

didymos1120 wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

 In ME, the Xeno-national oragnizations operate on the principal that assimilation is intrinsically not possible between the different species. This is a true premise because interbreeding is not possible.

It's an unjustified premise.  Assimilation is not the same thing as interbreeding, nor have you demonstrated that the latter is required for cultural assimilation between any two given species.

If anyone thinks that assimilation is impossible in the MEverse, they are knowingly or unknowingly fooling themselves. Every society (maybe even the Yahg ones, too) require collective empathy in order to be formed. Most races share basic features, have personalities and essentially speak in the same languange.

Assimilation will be the natural product of an extension of collective empathy, and if you don't believe me, look at how people reacted when Garrus got rocket'd on the face.

Or how people maintain that "Garrus is a total bro!".

Dean_the_Young wrote...

What sort of utilitarianism are you talking about here? Because the actual philosophy of Utilitarianism isn't two hundred fifty, let alone two thousand fife hundred, years old.

I kind of wished you would bring that up. I find it very humorous how one can think of ideas which have been rebutted centuries before that. Happens a lot in history, if you think about it. See how many new ideas have just been reimaginations of really old things. ie: certain of Leonardo's inventions, ancient astronomy, Greek philosophy,etc.

I am looking at you, Descartes.

To vaguely quote a very old idea:
"If you just managed to define justice, why don't you go and say it to all the courthouses? All of our problems would be solved!"

And then come those guys who claim that they can measure the happiness of humanity as a whole with numbers. Madness, I tell you. 

Various consequentialist philosophies have been around for as long as human philosophy and ethics have existed. Teleological ethics (the morality is based on the overall effects, not the nature of the action) are a cornerstone of nearly all secular legal systems and political relations in the world today.

Teleology is very big in scope, and consequentalism is affiliated to it in a very unteleological manner (if you think about it), but it is definitely not the base of any legal system of a civilized country.

You must be thinking of aristotelianism, aka virtue ethics.
There is an independant investigation in every single case, and the intent of a person is the one in question, not the consequences of the action.

This is an example of what you wouldn't see during a war crime trial:
World War 2 boosted the American economy, therefore those who started it, must be rewarded by the USA.
(Incoming Godwin)

That's consequentialism over there. Now, for utilitarinism specifically, you'd have a room filled with people carrying calculators, trying to calculate whether the death of American soldiers would make Americans sadder than the continuation of the Great Depression or not.

Deontologists would punish both the Allies and the Axis for killing each other (I am oversimplifying some things from Kant over here, but it's not too invalid).

Aristotelianists wouldn't probably punish any soldiers from either sides, but would rather punish the Axis leaders. And maaaaaybe, certain European, American politicians and British lords while they were at it.

Volus Warlord wrote...
[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/lol.png[/smilie]

And yet utilitarianism still rules the world.

Unless you are referring to the silly models which calculate how many cuts you can impose before there is a public outcry, not in the least.

I am pretty sure that you are thinking of imperialism, which one could argue has been in a slow decline since the French Revolution.

Modifié par Phaedon, 12 novembre 2011 - 07:03 .

[Arkitekt]

Sisterofshane wrote...

The problem that I have with Cerberus is not it's mantra, heck, it's not even it's method (come on, how many people here supported what happened in the end of DA2 without even batting an eyelash?).

No, the problem that I see with Cerberus and with TIM is the pure arrogance they display.  As if they are the only beings in the universe that know what is best for humanity.  That's also the problem with the current council, and many governments in general.

Truly, that is the problem with the Reapers themselves.  They believe themselves so great, so right that rather then give the choice, they would rather force us into submission.  How many of us would voluntarily submit to Ascension if it was offered by the Reapers, rather than forced upon us?

Anyone here claiming that they are so wise and without fault as to know with certainty what path we should take as a species (such as TIM) is just begging to partake in a fall from grace (just as TIM has).

Right on. You gave me a deja vu, mind you. I remembered a comic from a long long time ago (all time favs of mine), Valérian, and the "Heroes of the Equinox" (or whatever the english name is), where 4 heroes come to rescue a civilization in problems with the creation of their newer generation. They have to endure lots of perils, and 3 of those heroes are amazing, and yet arrogant and cocky. They know exactly what and how the newer generation is going to be, what ethics they will have, what future they will bring about. Valérian is the only one who knows nothing of the sort. His visions are nebulous and vague, and in the end he just says that whatever the new generation will think is best for them, so be it.

The others are ridiculing him, and then get enraged when they learned that Valérian is the one choosen for the seed of the new generation. Let's just say that his partner, Laurentine, wasn't happy with it 

[Dean_the_Young]

Phaedon wrote...

I kind of wished you would bring that up. I find it very humorous how one can think of ideas which have been rebutted centuries before that. Happens a lot in history, if you think about it. See how many new ideas have just been reimaginations of really old things. ie: certain of Leonardo's inventions, ancient astronomy, Greek philosophy,etc.

I am looking at you, Descartes.

To vaguely quote a very old idea:
"If you just managed to define justice, why don't you go and say it to all the courthouses? All of our problems would be solved!"

And then come those guys who claim that they can measure the happiness of humanity as a whole with numbers. Madness, I tell you. 

If your 'disproving' of utilitarianism is that there isn't a metric unit for colelctive good, that's not a rebuttal at all.

Teleology is very big in scope, and consequentalism is affiliated to it in a very unteleological manner (if you think about it), but it is definitely not the base of any legal system of a civilized country.

Consequences are the cornerstone of social justice. It's in effect every time that a worse harm brings a harsher punishiment. A man who robs a bank and steals a hundred dollars will receive a different punishment from a man who robs a bank and steals a hundred millions. A woman who murders her husband will face a different context than if she tortures him, but does not kill.

You must be thinking of aristotelianism, aka virtue ethics.
There is an independant investigation in every single case, and the intent of a person is the one in question, not the consequences of the action.

Not necessarily. Broad ideas do not require infinitely precise implementation. Anyone who lives in a democratic society accepts the compromises between principal and practice.

Stronger reactions for stronger impulses are a pretty much universal trait.

This is an example of what you wouldn't see during a war crime trial:
World War 2 boosted the American economy, therefore those who started it, must be rewarded by the USA.
(Incoming Godwin)

That's consequentialism over there.

No, it isn't. That's an arbitrary requirement.

Now, for utilitarinism specifically, you'd have a room filled with people carrying calculators, trying to calculate whether the death of American soldiers would make Americans sadder than the continuation of the Great Depression or not.

That wouldn't be utilitarianism specifically. That would be economics in general. There can be objective truths (impulse A produced effect .

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 12 novembre 2011 - 07:09 .

[Arkitekt]

Phaedon wrote...

This is an example of what you wouldn't see during a war crime trial:
World War 2 boosted the American economy, therefore those who started it, must be rewarded by the USA.
(Incoming Godwin)

That's consequentialism over there. 

I'm not going to enter this silly discussion, and far be it for me to defend utilitarianism, but this example is the most ridiculous piece of crap that I've ever seen in BSN.

Are you actually saying that the utilitarian equations would render the world war two as a positive event?

Please, don't even try to make arguments like this, you'll only render yourself as a troll.

To say that the WW2 kickstarted economies is just the fallacy of the broken windows.... it's not even wrong.

[Phaedon]

Oh, and while we are at it, you should tell Mr. Baruch that until he replaces all of our brains with those of supercomputers with access to utopically perfect encyclopaedias, we perfectly have the right to be wrong in our facts.

[Arkitekt]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

I kind of wished you would bring that up. I find it very humorous how one can think of ideas which have been rebutted centuries before that. Happens a lot in history, if you think about it. See how many new ideas have just been reimaginations of really old things. ie: certain of Leonardo's inventions, ancient astronomy, Greek philosophy,etc.

I am looking at you, Descartes.

To vaguely quote a very old idea:
"If you just managed to define justice, why don't you go and say it to all the courthouses? All of our problems would be solved!"

And then come those guys who claim that they can measure the happiness of humanity as a whole with numbers. Madness, I tell you. 

If your 'disproving' of utilitarianism is that there isn't a metric unit for colelctive good, that's not a rebuttal at all.

I wished someone splitted the thread. Mind you, the above "rebuttal" is quite damning. Without this metric, you cannot account for anything. If you cannot account, utilitarianism is useless.

I think this is too frakkin obvious.

[Phaedon]

Arkitekt wrote...
I'm not going to enter this silly discussion, and far be it for me to defend utilitarianism, but this example is the most ridiculous piece of crap that I've ever seen in BSN.

Are you actually saying that the utilitarian equations would render the world war two as a positive event?

Please, don't even try to make arguments like this, you'll only render yourself as a troll.

To say that the WW2 kickstarted economies is just the fallacy of the broken windows.... it's not even wrong.

Utilitarian? No, as you can see in my recently updated post, utilitarian equations wouldn't be finished correctly until after humanity went extinct.

Consequentialism in general? From a single perspective? Yes, a consequentialist could argue that WW2 kickstarted economies and contributed to the greater good.

Fortunately, I am not a consequentialist .

[Dean_the_Young]

Phaedon wrote...

Oh, and while we are at it, you should tell Mr. Baruch that until he replaces all of our brains with those of supercomputers with access to utopically perfect encyclopaedias, we perfectly have the right to be wrong in our facts.

And now you aren't even coherent.

Perhaps you should take a nap, collect your wits.

[Arkitekt]

Ok, since you go that ridiculous trolling path, name me one consequentialist that has ever produced such an asinine thought.

Oh you cannot? Then you are just trolling the thread.

[Dean_the_Young]

Arkitekt wrote...

I wished someone splitted the thread. Mind you, the above "rebuttal" is quite damning. Without this metric, you cannot account for anything. If you cannot account, utilitarianism is useless.

I think this is too frakkin obvious.

Unless you work in fields in which relative amounts, rather than precise amounts, are perfectly valid measures for comparison. Which actually accounts for many inter-personal disciplines.

Group dynamics are a pretty good example, really.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 12 novembre 2011 - 07:14 .

[Arkitekt]

Ah yeah. The "soft sciences" Kirk-maneuver. Sorry, I don't suffer sigma-1 based pseudo-sciences gladly.

[Dean_the_Young]

Arkitekt wrote...

Ah yeah. The "soft sciences" Kirk-maneuver. Sorry, I don't suffer sigma-1 based pseudo-sciences gladly.

And yet group dynamics and politics are very real elements of the world. They are an inherently non-uniform system (different cultures produce different persons of different inclinations), but broad patterns and commonalities do occur.

The military is an excellent demonstration of many soft sciences put into practice. What makes men risk their lives? Why can some be pushed so far, and some break after so little? Why does a unit of men perform admirably under one officer, but break and mutiny under another.

We can look at the concept of 'doctrine' for militaries, the roles of politics between military and civilian groups, ideology, and more.

Soft sciences exist. Not everything in the world boils down to a number with a unit, but the effects are real regardless.

[Arkitekt]

Sure, but stuff like that is basic empirical feedback studies, and so on. And easily degradable too. Thing is, this has stopped being about utilitarianism per se, and definitely stopped being about Cerberus.

[Phaedon]

[quote]Arkitekt wrote...

Ok, since you go that ridiculous trolling path, name me one consequentialist that has ever produced such an asinine thought.

Oh you cannot? Then you are just trolling the thread.[/quote]
I honestly can't understand why you are getting so worked up.

Did the consequences WW2 help Americans more? Probably not, I don't personally think so.

Let's assume that one could claim that they did, or that it was, as Dean says "an objective truth" that it did. Would a a)consequentialist with flawed, from the perspective of other ethical codes, morals not support that, or any consequentialist in general.

What I say is by no means a fact, and this is why I am posting it on a forum dedicated to debate. I just hate to see you, a poster that I actually respect get all worked up over this. 

So, first of all:

a) Why do you think that I am wrong?

Why are you so angry?

You want an example? Sure, I'll try to think of some later. It'll be until tomorrow that I'll be back though.


[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]Phaedon wrote...

Oh, and while we are at it, you should tell Mr. Baruch that until he replaces all of our brains with those of supercomputers with access to utopically perfect encyclopaedias, we perfectly have the right to be wrong in our facts.[/quote]And now you aren't even coherent.

Perhaps you should take a nap, collect your wits.
[/quote]
I'd argue that you need to make better use of the "search word" function that comes with Ctrl+F and not assume that you are the only person who ever posted in this thread, mate.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
If your 'disproving' of utilitarianism is that there isn't a metric unit for colelctive good, that's not a rebuttal at all.[/quote]
Oh, I am not saying that at all.
I am saying that there isn't a metric unit of collective good, because collective good is not a quantity which coukd be measured. 

It's not just that people think differently, but since every action is going to have a consequence for the rest of time, you can't calculate how happy every person will be for every single second from now on, unless you manage to be the last surviving person on Earth.

Oh, and even then, you would have to consider yourself as not a part of humanity which is wrong, since you had an effect on it while it existed, and be able to understand how every different person's brain worked, 24/7, for almost a century.



[quote]Consequences are the cornerstone of social justice. It's in effect every time that a worse harm brings a harsher punishiment. A man who robs a bank and steals a hundred dollars will receive a different punishment from a man who robs a bank and steals a hundred millions. A woman who murders her husband will face a different context than if she tortures him, but does not kill.[/quote]
Err, what you are saying is definitely virtue ethics since they were knowingly doing this?

But you know, manslaughter is the same thing as homicide, right? The consequences are the same, no?
And underage criminals are treated just like adult ones.
Mentally ill criminal are treated just like sane ones.



[quote]Not necessarily. Broad ideas do not require infinitely precise implementation. Anyone who lives in a democratic society accepts the compromises between principal and practice.[/quote]
A society in which courts don't investigate each crime idividually and don't care about the intent of the criminal is probably not a democratic one at all.

[quote]Stronger reactions for stronger impulses are a pretty much universal trait.[/quote]
Stronger reactions for stronger consequences are however, not.


[quote]No, it isn't. That's an arbitrary requirement.[/quote]
Except that utilitirianism, which promises perfect objectivity, falls under consequentialism, it's not it, no matter how much you'd like it. Consequentialism in general is filled with subjectivity just like any other moral code. If someone wanted to look at the effects of an action to spin it to fit what they want, they'd be consequentialists, too, you know. Technically 

[quote]
Now, for utilitarinism specifically, you'd have a room filled with people carrying calculators, trying to calculate whether the death of American soldiers would make Americans sadder than the continuation of the Great Depression or not.[/quote]That wouldn't be utilitarianism specifically. That would be economics in general. There can be objective truths (impulse A produced effect .
[/quote]
I am leaving this part of my post there until you answer to it, and not ignore it completely. Good and bad in utilitarianism is calculated by how happy or sad it makes every single human being. There can be objective truths? It's debatable if they do exist, in humanistic sciences, but I'd have to object if you apply this everywhere.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]Phaedon wrote...

Oh, and while we are at it, you should tell Mr. Baruch that until he replaces all of our brains with those of supercomputers with access to utopically perfect encyclopaedias, we perfectly have the right to be wrong in our facts.[/quote]And now you aren't even coherent.

Perhaps you should take a nap, collect your wits.
[/quote]
I'd argue that you need to make better use of the "search word" function that comes with Ctrl+F and not assume that you are the only person who ever posted in this thread, mate.

Modifié par Phaedon, 12 novembre 2011 - 07:34 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Arkitekt wrote...

Sure, but stuff like that is basic empirical feedback studies, and so on.

Hardly. Politics and inter-personal expertise predate the scientific method, and one of the first lessons is that there is no constant in dealing with people. An empiracle study that shows 59% of people felt offense when a word was spoken does not imply that 59% of all people will feel the same: it only tells us about that group. The entire field of psychology has spent centuries figuring out that behavior is incredibly flexible for many non-mathematical reasons.

And easily degradable too.

In this context, that word means nothing.

Thing is, this has stopped being about utilitarianism per se, and definitely stopped being about Cerberus.

And yet it's linked. Cerberus can not be defended if teleological ethics are invalid. If there is no such thing as public good, teleological ethics are invalid. But then came the point that if there are no precise units of public good, there can be no public good. But soft sciences without units do exist, proving the existence of things that exist without units.

We can certainly work backwards, if you'd like. Would you like to start by agreeing that teleological ethics can stand without a measured unit, or would prefer to debate the existence of soft-sciences?

[Clara Shepard]

sponge56 wrote...

There is no real plausibile explanation as to how some people on these forums can constantly defend Cerberus.

1)  Cerberus is an inherently RACIST/SPECIEST organisation.  They aim to make humanity the dominant power in the galaxy, subjugating the other races.  I don't understand how so many people on these forums can defend such as organisation.  The Mass Effects series makes it obvious that all races are fundamentally 'human' in regards to their emotions and core beliefs.  The only things which separate the races are some cultural and political differences.  The mantra of 'humanity has to be protected' has disturbing resonances to real life White Supremicist organisations, but I hopefully doubt that those defending Ceberus would defend this outlook.

2) Humanity doesn't really need to ascend.  A war with the other alien species is highly unlikely or even impossible due to the size of Humanity's fleet.  While not as large as the Turians, it poses a significant enough threat so that war would be very costly for both sides.  Also, Humanity is constantly given more and more powers and freedom by the Council in a very quick space of time, so why do we need such an organisation?

3) Many pro-cerberus supporters go on about how Cerberus represents and acts for humanity.  It does nothing of the sort.  Cerberus acts on the behalf of the Illusive Man, an individual figure who calls all the shots in his organisation.  The Alliance is run by elected officials who are voted into their respective positions, who elected the Illusive Man?  His funders trust he will act with humanity's best interests, but I doubt they know or have a say on a ything that he actually does.

:happy:  I think you're awesome.  And I hate Cerberus, and TIM. <_<

Though my arguement is weak I will say:

Cerberus, who wants to advancement of humanity, experiments on humans(like Tombs and others), gives a bad name to humans everywhere, and destroy all possible peace with others when it could so benificial.  
Would a man be stronger by himself, or would he be stronger if he had a pack of dogs and some friends?  One can only support themselves so much, after that, when everyone and everything is your enemy, you will have nothing left but your own ignorance.

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]Phaedon wrote...


[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]Phaedon wrote...

Oh, and while we are at it, you should tell Mr. Baruch that until he replaces all of our brains with those of supercomputers with access to utopically perfect encyclopaedias, we perfectly have the right to be wrong in our facts.[/quote]And now you aren't even coherent.

Perhaps you should take a nap, collect your wits.
[/quote]
I'd argue that you need to make better use of the "search word" function that comes with Ctrl+F and not assume that you are the only person who ever posted in this thread, mate.[/quote]On the other hand, if you quoted or made clear who you were talking to or what exactly you were referencing, you'd make far more sense.

As it is, you come off as someone who, tired, is jumping from A to D without passing through C.


[quote]
I am saying that there isn't a metric unit of collective good, because collective good is not a quantity which coukd be measured. [/quote]In units? No. In relative terms? Sure.
[quote]
It's not just that people think differently, but since every action is going to have a consequence for the rest of time, you can't calculate how happy every person will be for every single second from now on, unless you manage to be the last surviving person on Earth.[/quote]But we can predict the consequences closer, and more relevant, to us. We can also hold people to reasonable standards (which can be held), as opposed to unreasonable standards (which can not).

There's nothing in consequence-based morality that requires you to have perfect knowledge of the entire world.


[quote]
Oh, and even then, you would have to consider yourself as not a part of humanity which is wrong, since you had an effect on it while it existed, and be able to understand how every different person's brain worked, 24/7, for almost a century.[/quote]That doesn't show that considering yourself as part of a group you belong to would be wrong. Imperfect, yes, but imperfections are a fact.

A large part of the 'hard' sciences is modeling, and modeling always accepts imprecisions and errors inherent with the simplifications. Take the number 'pi', for example. No one has ever defined what it is... nor do we care. The concept of pi is useful, practical, and real. With it we can do what mathmatecians for thousands of years could not.

(Same with the number zero. Wonderful example of a non-existent reality.)


[quote]
Err, what you are saying is definitely virtue ethics since they were knowingly doing this?[/quote]Except they don't have to 'knowingly' be doing it. We also punish people who enable harmful actions without knowing, when we believe it was well within their power to realize.

'Reckless endangerment', or the concept of regulation. Regulation

[quote]
But you know, manslaughter is the same thing as homicide, right? The consequences are the same, no?[/quote]No, actually. A number of countries differentiate murder by degrees. First-degree murder, second-degree murder, third-degree murder. Then there's negligent manslaughter versus constructive manslaughter,


[quote]
And underage criminals are treated just like adult ones.[/quote]No they aren't. Not in many, many countries at least.
[quote]
Mentally ill criminal are treated just like sane ones.[/quote]No they aren't. This is why we have insanity pleas, or the concept of Mens Rea. The concept of hate crimes also comes into relevance with the motivation.

[quote]
A society in which courts don't investigate each crime idividually and don't care about the intent of the criminal is probably not a democratic one at all.[/quote]But no court in can investigate any crime to an infinite degree, which was the extreme you were approaching. Nor can any court investigate all crimes.

Courts that do things such as class-action lawsuits: a number of crimes are collectively gathered for an investigation. Then we have justice systems which can not handle all appeals for investigation, and so resort to plea bargains in lieu of intense investigations. We have statues of limitations and jurisidction limitations as well.

[quote]
Stronger reactions for stronger consequences are however, not.[/quote]The results are what drive thei impulses, so how could you agree with one and deny it's consequence.


[quote]
Except that utilitirianism, which promises perfect objectivity,[/quote]Says who? Besides you, I mean.

A system which appeals to the best objectivity possible is distinctly different from one which promises the impossible. To make the perfect the enemy of good is a ridiculous exageration. I might as well claim that, since you are a morally imperfect being, your moral arguments are thus disproven and invalid.


[quote]Consequentialism in general is filled with subjectivity just like any other moral code. If someone wanted to look at the effects of an action to spin it to fit what they want, they'd be consequentialists, too, you know. [/quote]The nature and emphasis of subjectivity is shifted, however. In general it is shifted to what is more commonly agreed upon: that something hurts someone, or something helps someone.



[quote]
I am leaving this part of my post there until you answer to it, and not ignore it completely. Good and bad in utilitarianism is calculated by how happy or sad it makes every single human being. There can be objective truths? It's debatable if they do exist, in humanistic sciences, but I'd have to object if you apply this everywhere.[/quote]And yet I'm not applying everywhere. I'm applying it here, where it belongs.

It would be the economists who decided whether a war ends a recession or not. Not the moralists. You're appealing to the wrong authority... and making a poor showing at it, since your implication that if the war did end the recession, utilitarians would have to reward the instigators ignores the non-monetary costs of the war.

[Xilizhra]

Here's the problem with consequentialism: are you taking actions that'll lead to the best possible outcome, or only one that happens to be better than the current one without bothering to account for better possibilities?