The winner is consequentialism. Also I bloody hate Kant. There is simply no reason to adopt universalisability as a moral criterion, and doing so leads to some absurd results.
I only know what consequentialism is (thanks to Vandalvideo, I have to give him that).
TELLMEYOURLIFE
Deontology is basically the opposite. The result of the action is not taken into account.
Ok I get it although I thought that consequentialism was more than just judging actions by the consequences; that it also included any consequence even if it occured by accident or by some unfortunate turn of events (such as: "the car hit him, because he wanted to buy cigarettes which made him cross the street to go buy them).
Its just deontology to me sounds like its a mindset telling you what you should do, while consequentialism is a mindset that deals with judging actions.
Its just deontology to me sounds like its a mindset telling you what you should do, while consequentialism is a mindset that deals with judging actions.Teenaged
I only know what consequentialism is (thanks to Vandalvideo, I have to give him that).
Teenaged
Deontology is basically the opposite. The result of the action is not taken into account.
Ok I get it although I thought that consequentialism was more than just judging actions by the consequences; that it also included any consequence even if it occured by accident or by some unfortunate turn of events (such as: "the car hit him, because he wanted to buy cigarettes which made him cross the street to go buy them).
Its just deontology to me sounds like its a mindset telling you what you should do, while consequentialism is a mindset that deals with judging actions.
Deontology says that you shouldn't kill because refraining from murder is a duty; a duty because if everyone went around killing, it'd be a crap world. Consquentialism says you shouldn't kill because it results in the death of someone. I think that's how it goes.
[QUOTE="TELLMEYOURLIFE"]Deontology is basically the opposite. The result of the action is not taken into account. SolidSnake35
Ok I get it although I thought that consequentialism was more than just judging actions by the consequences; that it also included any consequence even if it occured by accident or by some unfortunate turn of events (such as: "the car hit him, because he wanted to buy cigarettes which made him cross the street to go buy them).
Its just deontology to me sounds like its a mindset telling you what you should do, while consequentialism is a mindset that deals with judging actions.
Deontology says that you shouldn't kill because refraining from murder is a duty; a duty because if everyone went around killing, it'd be a crap world. Consquentialism says you shouldn't kill because it results in the death of someone. I think that's how it goes.Hm, I thought deontology actually told you "you must because you must" without much reasoning behind that must.
[QUOTE="SkyWard20"][QUOTE="TELLMEYOURLIFE"][QUOTE="SkyWard20"] Can I ask what you prefer?Consequentialism. Thanks. Guess I'll pick Deontology, then. :)I'm glad you at least thoroughly considered your stance.
[QUOTE="SkyWard20"][QUOTE="TELLMEYOURLIFE"][QUOTE="SkyWard20"] Can I ask what you prefer?Consequentialism. Thanks. Guess I'll pick Deontology, then. :) Worst post I've read all day.
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable.
TELLMEYOURLIFE
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table.David Hume could out consume Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, And Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel
[QUOTE="TELLMEYOURLIFE"][QUOTE="SkyWard20"][QUOTE="t3hrubikscube"] Worst post I've read all day. Well, sorry then! :(Apologise for ruining her day. I already did! I was trying to make a funny...
[QUOTE="T_P_O"][QUOTE="TELLMEYOURLIFE"][QUOTE="T_P_O"] Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table.David Hume could out consume Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, And Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as SchlegelThere's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'bout the raisin' of the wrist.
[QUOTE="T_P_O"][QUOTE="TELLMEYOURLIFE"]David Hume could out consume Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel,TELLMEYOURLIFE
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as SchlegelThere's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'bout the raisin' of the wrist. Socrates himself was permanently pissed.
[QUOTE="TELLMEYOURLIFE"][QUOTE="T_P_O"] And Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as SchlegelT_P_O
There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'bout the raisin' of the wrist. Socrates himself was permanently pissed. A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed :)
*Edit* Ok, I screwed that one up.
*Hangs head in shame before quietly slipping out of thread*
[QUOTE="SkyWard20"][QUOTE="TELLMEYOURLIFE"][QUOTE="SkyWard20"] Well, sorry then! :(Apologise for ruining her day. I already did! I was trying to make a funny... IT'S OKAY, man. :]
Log in to comment