Philo
Sophos
·com

philosophy is for everyone
and not just philosophers

philosophers should know lots
of things besides philosophy


PhiloSophos knowledge base

Pathways to Philosophy programs

Pathways web sites

Philosophy lovers gallery

Science, arts and humanities

PhiloSophos home

home first back 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 forward

Pajno asked:

Is it possible to have the "greatest good for the greatest number"?

============

In my view, no. It is a nice theory, but it assumes that you can actually measure "good" (or pleasure,
or whatever) and then add it all up — not just for one possible sequence of events, but for all possible
outcomes. This is a nonsense, and it is an even greater nonsense to base a theory of ethics on it.
This is not to say that we should not try to anticipate the outcomes of our actions, nor that
consequences are of no moral value.

Tim Sprod