> It's not intended that way, and I'm posing it with honesty. Yes, I believe you. But still, I don't care for your framing of it; it is still too loaded. When

> It's not intended that way, and I'm posing it with honesty. Yes, I believe you. But still, I don't care for your framing of it; it is still too loaded. When learning about a new concept, one owe it to the concept to give it a fair chance. It is all too easy to misrepresent an idea. (To me, when looking at your comments overall, it seems possible that this is what you are doing: you aren't fully open to really understanding the idea; you've already _judged_ and _dismissed_ it.) Aside: To be clear, I don't think "open mindedness" is the ideal _end_ goal. Open mindedness is a _tool_ to evaluate and understand. But the _goal_ is to draw conclusions in order to act wisely. > If it's too loaded, then replace Hitler with, I don't know, <insert_bad_guy_here>. It doesn't matter who the bad guy is; the point is: you kill an innocent person (grandfather_of_bad_guy) in order to mold the future in a way that you think will save more, other innocent lives. Correct? To do consequentialist ethics (CE) rigorously, one has to explore all likely outcomes. In my view, the best intellectual framework for doing so would be to build and evaluate a probabilistic tree of possible outcomes over a suitable time frame. See Decision Theory [1] The example you gave has two major problems. First, it offers a false dichotomy. Why would one think the only choice is to kill an innocent ancestor or just "let" the bad guy do all the terrible things? Second, even to a pure consequentialist who is willing to set aside the "present value of a life" (I don't even like saying this), killing a person has negative consequences on their family, friends, community, city, state, and country. Of course there are differences between CE and DE, but in practice I don't think they are as jarring as people can make them out to be. The specially-constructed "wedge" examples get too much airtime in my opinion. It is far more important to teach people about decision theory and how it applies to not just economics and cybersecurity but also morality. I've written enough here for now. I hope you view your questions as jumping off points for additional philosophical investigation. I have seen for myself that studying these ideas is worthwhile: personally and from studying history. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory