Hmm. What's y'alls opinion on consquentialism? :/
https://web.archive.org/web/20161115073538/http://raikoth.net/consequentialism.html
@Angle As an aside, While Scott indeed is a Philosophy major, I suspect a better reference is https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/
@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 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 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.