I agree "the good" is not definite, of definitive, enough to function as a coherent object (goal ~ value) in ethics. I am a negative consequentialist because, I think, "the bad" (suffering), however, does function as a coherent object (avoidable hazard ~ disvalue). The link here is to a wiki article which summarizes the thesis. — 180 Proof
Is anyone here a consequentialist who would care to argue? — RolandTyme
because suffering, in contrast to "happiness", is objective in so far as it is factual what deprivations & harms, fears & losses render (almost) every individual of a / our species dysfunctional or dead, that is, whatever is not good for a / our kind, and, therefore, that it can be known whether or not "gratuitous suffering" is foreseen and, if so, prevented or mitigated or reduced. — 180 Proof
Better Socrates dissatisfied thsn a fool/pig statisfied. — J. S. Mill
The problem is our situation doesn't give us enough information to make an informed choice. — RolandTyme
For instance, certain far left wingers think that right wing governments actually make left wing values winning out in the long run, as they increase disatisfaction in the long run with the status quo (which for the far left is by necessity right wing), where as voting left forstalls the change in the status quo away from the right to the left. — RolandTyme
My whole point is - we can't know. I don't think we can even make an educated guess. — RolandTyme
consequentialism has no practical important — RolandTyme
Consequentialism is related to practical wisdom - however, that's as far as it goes. They commonly aren't taken to be the same thing. — RolandTyme
But, in this case, if things can be aggregated, and are commensurable,then you can freely substitute them for each other. — RolandTyme
but think ideally you should do both — RolandTyme
I was using commensurable in the technical sense - able to be measured on the same scale. — RolandTyme
if things can be aggregated, and are commensurable, then you can freely substitute them for each other. — RolandTyme
go and read the Stanford Encyclopedia entry on "comensurability" — RolandTyme
assessing what other people are trying to say — RolandTyme
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.