| ... |
... |
@@ -1,22
+1,0 @@ |
| 1 |
|
-====Policies inevitably entail tradeoffs, which necessitates util because any other theory would condemn one specific group. Their duty is to maximize benefits for all. Woller 97==== |
| 2 |
|
-**Gary Woller, June 1997 (BYU Prof.), "An Overview by Gary Woller", A Forum on the Role of Environmental Ethics, pg. 10/** |
| 3 |
|
-"Moreover, virtually all public policies entail some redistribution of economic or political resources |
| 4 |
|
-AND |
| 5 |
|
-unreasonableness while failing to adequately address the problem or actually making it worse." |
| 6 |
|
- |
| 7 |
|
- |
| 8 |
|
-====Equality among individuals proves util. Cummiskey==== |
| 9 |
|
-**Kantian Consequentialism. David Cummiskey. ~~Associate Philosophy Professor at Bates College~~. Ethics, Vol. 100, No. 3. 1990. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2381810** |
| 10 |
|
-If one truly believes that all rational beings have an equal value, then the |
| 11 |
|
-AND |
| 12 |
|
-equal consideration suggests that one may have to sacrifice some to save many. |
| 13 |
|
- |
| 14 |
|
- |
| 15 |
|
-====Morality must justify all necessary steps to take a moral action otherwise it's meaningless. Util solves because it views every action as necessary to reach an end. Snyder 96 summarizes Sinnot-Armstrong==== |
| 16 |
|
-**"A new argument for consequentialism? A reply to Sinnott-Armstrong" FRANCES HOWARD-SNYDER** |
| 17 |
|
-Suppose I have a reason AND |
| 18 |
|
- from the rest of the view |
| 19 |
|
-Thus the standard is maximizing expected well-being |
| 20 |
|
- |
| 21 |
|
- |
| 22 |
|
-Analytic |