If the right thing to do is the consequentialist thing to do, and an outcome turns out bad, but it was still the best choice with the information one knew at the time, would that be consequentialism or virtue ethics?
edit: Ok, I completed the survey and just guessed. Would still like to know the answer though.
It sounds like rule consequentialism to me—the ultimate arbiter of good and evil remains the consequences, but instead of determining rectitude by calculating the consequences of the action, you calculate the consequences of the decision method.
Basically, to use a blackjack metaphor, the rule consequentialist says someone who doubles-down when they have two tens showing is playing badly, even if they get an ace … unless they’ve been counting cards and already know that the next card is an ace.
If the right thing to do is the consequentialist thing to do, and an outcome turns out bad, but it was still the best choice with the information one knew at the time, would that be consequentialism or virtue ethics?
edit: Ok, I completed the survey and just guessed. Would still like to know the answer though.
It sounds like rule consequentialism to me—the ultimate arbiter of good and evil remains the consequences, but instead of determining rectitude by calculating the consequences of the action, you calculate the consequences of the decision method.
Basically, to use a blackjack metaphor, the rule consequentialist says someone who doubles-down when they have two tens showing is playing badly, even if they get an ace … unless they’ve been counting cards and already know that the next card is an ace.
Thank you!