Quote:
Originally Posted by Catlady
But the donation is not a necessary consequence of the theft. It's an entirely separate action.
|
The judge would listen to the story, and any witness, and decide if the story was plausible enough to influence sentencing.
As for the "entirely separate action" standard, deciding what is, and is not, an entirely separate action is a constant issue if you have a purist consequences morality. Suppose that someone pirates an eBook at 1 PM and buys two different ones at 2 PM. Consequences purist apologists for piracy have, on this board, repeatedly suggested that those are NOT entirely separate actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catlady
So I'm not sure what point you're making.
|
This is just how I felt when I read #831! But as you did with me, I'm next going to take a shot at answering it anyway:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mujokan
If you are interested in consequentialist moral theory it's probably better to go read about it directly rather than my getting involved in some baroque discussion about imaginary scenarios.
|
I haven't read philosophy in a long time, but, googling, I found a seemingly reasonable title. I am going to try to borrow this book from the library (paper only and may take an interlibrary loan):
Utilitarianism: For and Against
Alternate suggestions are welcome, but keeping them short (the above is 155 pages) makes me more likely to read it, and if I think you aren't just recommending stuff you agree with, that's an even bigger
