Hmm. What's y'alls opinion on consquentialism? :/
https://web.archive.org/web/20161115073538/http://raikoth.net/consequentialism.html
Just gave it a quick read. The author is constantly dodging the answer what consequntialism is. Form what I get so far it is about producing a good outcome vor consequence by your actions. So you could sum it up by "the end justifies means". I would habe to disagree because even if you meant well, bad actions remain bad actions.
@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