Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4235231" data-attributes="member: 42582">OK, but how does one individuate acts? If not by their consequences, then by the intentions that generated and guided them, presumably.To put it another way: both deontologists and consequentialilsts care about acts. But they differ in their criteria for act-individuation and hence act-evaluation: intention for deontologists, consequences for consequentialism.I don't really want to get into a discussion of free will. I'll just ask - if this moral quality is independent of the agent's intention, and is independent of the consequences that result from the action, then what does it depend upon?To answer "the maxim" will not help. The maxim is simply a description of the action. I know how to describe actions by reference to agents' intentions. I know how to describe them by reference to their consequences. But what other description is available here?Does "judging an objective ethics" mean working out whether or not it is true?Anyway, there is no obvious contrast between consequentialism and moral objectivism. Most major consequentialists have been objectivists (J S Mill, Sidgwick, and on at least some interpretations Hare and Singer).This I don't understand. Why not just have philosophical discussions about what is actually happening in the game. How does a nonsensical moral framework imposed by the game designers facilitate moral reflection?</blockquote>