Night Ripper wrote:
Like I said, the problem you're facing is, as soon as you jumped ship from the actual consequences to the intended consequences you are now taking up the same argument I am.
I didn't jump ship to the intended consequences. I explained
to you the agend does not have to intend
the consequences he's likely to bring about. He doesn't even have to know or care about them What counts is the complete bundle of possible actual consequences, weighed by their statistical probability at the time he acts.
You seem incredibly confused here Thomas. Make your mind up why don't you.
Either you think that the intentions of the actor are what determine the morality of an action or you think that the consequences of the action are what determine its morality. If you think that the intentions are paramount then all that is left is a second order debate of what constitutes "good" intentions. You think it is utility. Others may disagree.
On this last post of yours, you seem to be vacillating back to your original consequentialist position that "...What counts is the complete bundle of possible actual consequences, weighed by their statistical probability at the time he acts.... "
Given the above, I repeat my earlier charge that such a philosophy must logically condone the Roman games, public hanging, the Holocaust and snuff movies since they all produced a great deal of pleasure for a relative majority at the time.
By relative, I mean when compared to the unspeakable suffering of the unfortunate minority that your nasty little anti-human philosophy does not see the need to take into account as long as the sums add-up eh?