From: Ian Goddard (igoddard@netkonnect.net)
Date: Mon May 25 1998 - 11:59:34 MDT
At 08:54 AM 5/25/98 -0400, Daniel Fabulich wrote:
> IAN: If we say there is "no possible way to construe
> utilitarianism as a 'me first' principle," we say
> the sets of "me first" (M) and utilitarianism (U)
> are disjoint, such that the intersection (^) of
> M and U is the null set(/), ergo: M ^ U = (/).
>
>You have incorrectly stated the nature of my statement.
IAN: I don't believe I did, but if so, sorry.
>Indeed, while deontology
>and consequentialism may sometimes agree on the same moral actions, they
>are two VERY distinct moral theories; there is no way you could construe
>one to be the other, despite the fact that they do have some overlap.
IAN: OK, but that introduces concpets not stated
previously. So which, "me first" or "ulilitarianism,"
are you saying is deontological and which consequential?
**************************************************************
VISIT IAN WILLIAMS GODDARD --------> http://Ian.Goddard.net
______________________________________________________________
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its
opponents and making them see the light, but rather because
its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows
up that is familiar with the idea from the beginning."
Max Plank - Nobel physicist
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual.
Those who deny individual rights cannot claim
to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:07 MST