@Angle It's one of the useful moral lenses to examine a situation from. I think one of its bigger flaws is externalise-measurement (and of course, operationalising "good"). But it's absolutely worth discussing a moral prescription or ethical proscription from its lens, just as a deontological or virtue lens would also be useful.

I find it a touch reductivist for my personal taste as a primary ethical mode though.

@DenubisX I generally agree, but think there are some very important disclaimers to go around, namely "You can't ways estimate the co snsequences of an action." :/

@Angle Exactly so. Which is why it's useful as *one* of the lenses, and the working through is a great exercise.

@Angle However, since doing it "right" includes: Step 1: Presume omniscience. it's uh... difficult to just completely commit to it.

@DenubisX I think it's a little unfair to say that. I'd say step one is "estimate your ability to determine the consequences of your actions." :/

@Angle This is the whole carnapian argument. Since we *cannot* be omniscient, we must instead rely on observed outcomes and confirmation. Thus, because we fail step 1, we must go onto alternate track "estimate consequences of actions." But that is less perfect than simply being omniscient.

@Angle Note that this is a distinction from assuming that the perfect good is being able to estimate your ability.

And yes, obviously we have to make compromises to the real. :)

@Angle "Be perfect, given that we cannot be perfect, we must observe perfectly. Given that we cannot observe perfectly, we must be able to observe proxies such that allow us to approximate (in some rough way) perfect observation."

@DenubisX ...? Carnapian? I don't know what that is. :/

@Angle Rudolf Carnap, vienna circle. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vienna-circle/#VerCriMetClaPer

@Angle https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-empiricism/#EmpVerAntMet is... betterish. hrm.

@Angle http://www.iep.utm.edu/carnap/#H4 Much betterer

@arkedos Yes, consequentialsim is the moral philosophy that says that some times, the end can justify the means. I generally agree, though I think there are some very important disclaimers to go along with that statement - namely, the fact that we can't always tell what all the consequences of an action will be. :/

@Angle @arkedos I'd state it more strongly than that. I'd say that determining all of the consequences of an action is impossible in advance actually taking that action. Too many interactions, chaos theory, etc. Indeed, it may *never* be possible to accurately determine the consequences of any given action, even many *many* years after it.

@arkedos @thamesynne Yeah, but I think in moat cases we can get close enough. I can't know all the consequences of punching random people, but I can still figure out it's a bad idea. :/

@Angle @arkedos but isn't that the thing? One of those people might, on being punched, carefully examine their own consciences to determine whether or not it was warranted, misidentify you as someone they would think had a justification, and mend their ways, being a dramatically better human being as a result - maybe even personally saving a thousand people from starving...

It's far-fetched, but possible. "Close enough" leaves that person unpunched & the world less good.

@arkedos @thamesynne It also leaves a whole lot of people less sore, and averts any potential for one of those people to feel slighted, and decide to declare vengeance upon the human race because of it. I'm confident in my analysis and plan to stick to it. :P

@joXn Huh, can you explain the reasoning for the personal one for me? :/

@Angle

1.

we don't have the capacity as individuals to use utilitarianism (or consequentialism in general) as a day to day guide star. in general, we can't be certain about the utility of our actions, and we lack the capability to internalize statistical analysis as a decision principle (and if we didn't, we'd often lack the data to apply it).

this means that consequentialism is not workable as a general personal ethical framework.

@Angle
2.

of the two remaining major approaches, it seems to me that deontology is much more likely to lead to moral tragedies (of the "sorry, but those are the rules" kind, as well as the "I was just following orders" kind).

this is the main reason I would call deontology "unworkable".

@Angle
3.

additionally, virtue ethics aligns with the human tendency to want to see ourselves as the hero of our own lives, as being good people in adverse circumstances.

finally, my own preferred ethical framework (Buddhism) is a virtue ethic. so I either have a bias towards that outcome, or I have evidence by demonstration that it can be workable — take your pick.