I certainly do not think that is what I was doing. Really, I guess I want to understand the kind of normative theories people on here think are correc (and why), under a specific criterion of assessment. I think many people will take a consequentialist perspective on this site, (tentatively, I do too, but I am not confident in my convictions yet).
On a more meta-ethical level, I’m wondering how important the criterion of applicability is to a moral theory (for real humans, now.) I’m more interested in understanding the question “how should we act, and how do we know?” rather than “what is the best theoretical action?”. (Of course, I may be begging the question assuming there is a difference between the two.)
Are you -intending- to deconstruct rule utilitarianism back into act utilitarianism here, or is that just me misunderstanding what you’re getting at?
ETA: I think it’s just me. Retracting.
I certainly do not think that is what I was doing. Really, I guess I want to understand the kind of normative theories people on here think are correc (and why), under a specific criterion of assessment. I think many people will take a consequentialist perspective on this site, (tentatively, I do too, but I am not confident in my convictions yet).
On a more meta-ethical level, I’m wondering how important the criterion of applicability is to a moral theory (for real humans, now.) I’m more interested in understanding the question “how should we act, and how do we know?” rather than “what is the best theoretical action?”. (Of course, I may be begging the question assuming there is a difference between the two.)