4 ms·

No, I think I understand your point, from Hitlers frame it would have been justified. A consequentialist argument can take place before the action itself, we n

No, I think I understand your point, from Hitlers frame it would have been justified. A consequentialist argument can take place before the action itself, we need to perform X because the outcome will be Y. Sometimes the means and ends align with deotological means and ends, other times they do not. I am saying your reasoning is consequentialist because it is an end justify the means argument, and I disagree because regardless of whether hitlers ends are met I think he would still be wrong because I reject consequentialism as a moral argument. I reject it precisely because these are the outcomes consistent with this as moral framework.

fluoridation 3y ago
Sorry, but I'm not following you. I'm a bit thirsty right now. I think if I get up and drink a glass of water, I'll stop being thirsty. You can look at the sequence of events after the fact and think "fluoridation was right that drinking water would quench his thirst" or "fluoridation was wrong that drinking water would quench his thirst". Neither statement is consequentialist, because neither passes judgement on the morality of drinking water, on no longer being thirsty, or on using one to achieve the other. You're just making a statement about how my thinking aligns with reality. Changing the goal or the method changes nothing. Replace "drinking water" with "sacrificing infants on the field" and "being thirsty" with "having a poor harvest". You can call me ignorant and superstitious without judging me morally on my actions or my thinking.
- Geisterde 3y ago
  Uhh, hmm OK I think you may have been right about my misunderstanding, I think we got disjointed when I said "factually correct and thus justified", I carried on remembering the justified part. Yes he would have been factually right, he did in fact create the utopia, regardless of whether he was justified. On the topic of justified however, yes I consider this a question of consequentialism versus deontology, an attempt to justify the means by the ends is consequentialist and I squarely reject it. People engaging in consequentialist reasoning on the topic itself does not justify the consequentialist reasoning.

fluoridation 3y ago

Sorry, but I'm not following you. I'm a bit thirsty right now. I think if I get up and drink a glass of water, I'll stop being thirsty. You can look at the sequence of events after the fact and think "fluoridation was right that drinking water would quench his thirst" or "fluoridation was wrong that drinking water would quench his thirst". Neither statement is consequentialist, because neither passes judgement on the morality of drinking water, on no longer being thirsty, or on using one to achieve the other. You're just making a statement about how my thinking aligns with reality. Changing the goal or the method changes nothing. Replace "drinking water" with "sacrificing infants on the field" and "being thirsty" with "having a poor harvest". You can call me ignorant and superstitious without judging me morally on my actions or my thinking.

Geisterde 3y ago
Uhh, hmm OK I think you may have been right about my misunderstanding, I think we got disjointed when I said "factually correct and thus justified", I carried on remembering the justified part. Yes he would have been factually right, he did in fact create the utopia, regardless of whether he was justified. On the topic of justified however, yes I consider this a question of consequentialism versus deontology, an attempt to justify the means by the ends is consequentialist and I squarely reject it. People engaging in consequentialist reasoning on the topic itself does not justify the consequentialist reasoning.