Posted By: kland
“consequentialist morality” versus “absolutism.” - 04/12/19 08:23 PM
From https://stream.org/atheist-richard-dawkins-cannibalism/
Consequentialism says that the consequences of a person’s actions should be the sole basis to judge whether those actions are right or wrong. There is nothing inherently right or wrong in any act, but only what flows from an act.
Absolutism, contrast, does not deny consequences, but insists acts can be good or bad in themselves.
It always turns out to be the common sense of the person advocating consequentialism. That makes their opinions and judgments the absolutes to which everybody else must bow. We’d better pray that they get their common sense judgments right. Otherwise, who knows who will turn up on the menu?
Consequentialism says that the consequences of a person’s actions should be the sole basis to judge whether those actions are right or wrong. There is nothing inherently right or wrong in any act, but only what flows from an act.
Absolutism, contrast, does not deny consequences, but insists acts can be good or bad in themselves.
It always turns out to be the common sense of the person advocating consequentialism. That makes their opinions and judgments the absolutes to which everybody else must bow. We’d better pray that they get their common sense judgments right. Otherwise, who knows who will turn up on the menu?