Quote:
Originally Posted by PKFFW
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?
|
Well, not exectly. All acts that do not lead to the greatest good (optimization) is wrong if your theory is an optimizing one. So it is not enough to increase the utility you have to find the action that gives the greatest utility.
Quote:
|
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?
|
I do not get what the difference is between "wrong" and "absolutely wrong". Usually people use terms like "absolutely wrong" in rights based theories were you do not look at the consequence of an action to see if it is wrong.