[soitlyobserty]

Yes.

For instance, a career criminal. If he's convicted for a crime that he didn't commit, is it all good since it's known he's done crime in the past?

No.

[Scukonah]

The proper answer is, as it usually happens to be, 'it depends'.

[AcecePesFeacy]

I would participate in this [serious] thread but it has an invalid poll.

[Qnpqbpac]

No. Only for the crimes he has committed.

[CDCL7WKJ]

nope

[toopyimport]

I don't believe the ends justify the mean, but they can provide a rough estimate. For example, knowing that the low end is five and the high end is fifteen, you could just say the mean is around ten. It's better than nothing.

EDIT: On reflection, I'd say the ends are much better at justifying the median.

[quottrethew]

This isn't a ****ing math question, you geeks.

[preachadaq]

The meanies will justify your end.

[muytreda]

No, and it's not just about crime. It's not at all about math.

[zlopikanikanza]

It is sad to hear that Slowwhand has been busted Capone-style but this is better news than nothing

Note: This isn't legal advice and I will not represent you.

[Donlupedron]

Okay, so I did understand the question. And I still think "deontologists" are retarded.

[WhileKelf]

It's more complicated than that. As a practical matter, human morality is deontological, and it's pretty clear that it ought to be so according to any reasonable consequentialist framework.

xpost

[11Pecepebra]

It's more complicated than that. As a practical matter, human morality is deontological, and it's pretty clear that it ought to be so according to any reasonable consequentialist framework.

xpost

As long as you don't say "x is always wrong" where x is a means, then you're not stupid. "x is usually wrong, but not if you have good reasons for it" is okay.

[neirty]

As long as you don't say "x is always wrong" where x is a means, then you're not stupid. "x is usually wrong, but not if you have good reasons for it" is okay.

What with "x is always wrong, but there may be no better alternatives than to do x?"

Don't ask me for an example.

[9enackivegliva]

As long as you don't say "x is always wrong" where x is a means, then you're not stupid.

The problem is that we probably want people to be stupid, at least with respect to some actions. I guess some people might come up with excuses to justify whatever they want to do, instead of actually figuring out what the right thing to do is. But of course you're advocating deontological ethics as a means, aren't you?

[Duseshoug]

I guess some people might come up with excuses to justify whatever they want to do, instead of actually figuring out what the right thing to do is. But of course you're advocating deontological ethics as a means, aren't you?

Yes. It's sort of like the burning boats example in game theory.

btw this is known as rule consequentialism generally, though there are a bunch of minor details you have to work out to have a complete theory.

Of particular concern to any consequentialist system is how to deal with the locality problem, i.e. explaining why an individual's responsibility to nearby people is greater than his responsibility to those far away. Rule consequentialism can provide some useful outs here.

[grosqueneen]

It either is or it isn't. This is a black and white question.

There aren't very many black and white questions in ethics. Even a question that's very simple on the surface, like "is it okay to kill people," has a lot of exceptions. You yourself have stated that it is okay to kill Iraqi civilians for the crime of looking like terrorists.

Rules are good for simplifying the common case. "Is it okay to kill people?" "Probably not." For the thornier questions, intentions are more important. "Is it okay to kill people?" "I dunno, why do you want to kill them?" Utilitarianism is really only useful as a tie-breaker.

[Sx1qBli0]

At which point it becomes necessary to ask your intentions in wanting to kill Iraqi civilians (or, if you prefer, your intentions in wanting to declare that Iraq contains no civilians). The point is, rules usually work but they don't always work.

[Lkemybab]

It's not a matter of wanting to kill people that claim to be civilians; besides which, this is not an Iraqi war thread either.

[OrefZorremn]

How do people view ethics? It's a useful discipline, moreso than most. I'd say ethics is probably more important than my own discipline of history. The only one I can really think of as more important is probably language. Can't express ideas without some form of communication. I'd be open as to whether maths is more important than ethics.

I'd list them:

language, ethics, philosophy in general, mathematics, history, physics, chemistry, biology (inc medicine), economics, engineering, computer science, about ten ellipses, psychology, sociology, women's studies,