| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,22 @@ |
|
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 |