by that logic all ethics are flawed, since actions have no inherent morality that we can judge. Each culture, and even each individual has a different belief in what is morally right, so you can't be sure who is correct. If you can't judge ethics consequentially because you can't be 100% sure of the outcome, then you can't judge ethics inherently because you can't be 100% sure whose inherent ethics are correct. 100% certainty is non-existent in the realm of ethics, it's all comparatives and judgement calls, and no one can be certain they are right, that doesn't mean they shouldn't try.summerof2010 said:He wasn't saying that. He was saying that we can't determine what will result from any action, therefore consequentialist ethics (utilitarianism is a sub-group within consequentialist ethical theory) are flawed. You can only judge actions by their inherent morality. I disagree with that, but you still can't argue a straw man. (I'm sure it was unintentional, but nonetheless.)spartan231490 said:It's better to try and fail than to sit back and say "I'm not capable of judging good or bad, so I'm going to let Hitler kill 12 million Jews."
Also, he never mentioned anything about inherent morality, he just said that you couldn't be certain of the outcome so you can't judge anything by the outcome, which is logically flawed to begin with. None of us can be sure that we will live to see tomorrow, but we still act on the assumption that we will, because the alternative is unlivable.
Also, I'm not sure who you were talking to about straw-man, mine is not a straw man, it is hyperbole. Some would probably still whine about that, but as I also put the logical argument behind it in my post, and was just using hyperbole as an extreme example, I don't really care.