Quote:
Originally Posted by tompe
The specific act in a specific situation is wrong. You do not talk of an "absolute wrong". What do you mean here by "absolute wrong"?
|
You began by explaining that utilitarians consider the consequences of their actions to determine whether those actions are wrong or not. Patricia explained a utilitarian view point as one that considers an act with regards to what will give the greatest good to the greatest number of people.
So, if it is the consequences that make an action wrong or not, and if the definition of an action not being wrong means that it provides good to many people(good and many being relative terms of course but I hope you get my point), does it not follow that the definition of a "wrong" act would be if the harm done by the act outweighed the good done by it?
Therefore doesn't it follow that if an action does
no good whatsoever and instead causes only harm, would that not be "absolutely wrong"? How could the action not be wrong if it causes absolutely no good at all?
Cheers,
PKFFW