ivar
Joined
Likes
2

Profile posts Latest activity Postings About

  • I only posted it there because it was my thoughts on the original thread--regarding how comfortable you are with your "nerdy" interests and what not. Thanks for the criticisms, though.
    well i for one am really glad that firebot and congregation were merged into this gem. pretty much all that accomplished was getting rid of congregation<-- word, at least nobody touches the IR threads
    if my bullshit dweeb talk is too intense for you at this level, I can always make you some flash cards
    Well we can always hit up a restaurant, I'm at like 592 Sherbourne in Toronto. Somewhere close to there!
    how old are you? Ala and I would like a pub when I visit Toronto but maybe we need to hit up a place where you can get a happy meal? It's cool no matter what- I love their cheeseburgers.
    ivar I would like to hug you for saying you'd like to choke fishy, even if you're into some fucked up shit.
    Taking this out of thread.

    "Utilitarianism is the moral theory that ascribes moral value according to the moral value of a calculated outcome. If action A saves 100 lives, it is better than action B, which saves 99 lives--regardless of the means of achieving action A. The ends of an action are favoured."

    Would I be correct in thinking that to properly compare A and B in utilitarianism, you are going to have to consider ALL the ends of actions A and action B?

    For example, suppose action A is saving 100 lives by jailing a million people. Action B is saving 99 lives by jailing 1 person. In comparing the outcome of the two events, you can't just consider the lives saved and ignore the people jailed. The number jailed is as much an "end" as the number saved.

    Correct, or incorrect?
    I wonder if they will follow through with the fireban after mekkahs hilarity
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…