[Paybeskf]

Asher, any ethical calculus rooted in consequentialism (which has dominated ethical thinking since Jeremy Bentham) would necessarily have to consider the practicalities of a chosen alternative. You seem to have a deontological conception of ethics which is fine but you have to understand that any value judgments you make about the correctness of an action are purely subjective and arbitrary. At least a teleological ethical system can 'measure' something, usually happiness, and determine an action to be correct if it generated more 'well-being' than non-chosen alternatives.

Of course, this is by it's nature a hindsight system and the idea of happiness having intrinsic value and being something to be aspired to is arbitrary as well. Also problematic is the fact that humans are dealing with uncertain futures and are resource-constrained which prevents an accurate appraisal of the consequences of any particular ethical action. So Kuci's crap is fundamentally flawed as well.

Here's a question for you, Asher: Would you say that there are actions that are categorically wrong?


EDIT: I guess my post isn't really relevant anymore