/lit/ - Literature

>>4551776
Yes. It's a consequentialist philosophy.

>>4551778
thanks. I'm reading shafer landau and my fucking professor insists on jumping between chapters.

ex- one chapter we read will reference concepts we haven't learned yet

fucking annoying

all utilitarians and consequensialists, but not all consequentialists are utilitarians.

>>4551784

that and is supposed to be an are

>>4551784
so where does the difference lie inbetween utilitarianism and consequentialism?

Afaik, consequentialism is the belief that an action is moral if it brings about the greatest net benefit. I thought utilitarianism was pretty much the same thing, but if your statement is true, then I am wrong

>>4551781
>shafer landau
Just read the whole book by yourself. It is a pretty good read anyway.

>>4551790
Nah pal, consequentialism is simply a moral system by which actions are judged on their consequences or effects rather than pre-judged on an absolute set of moral values. Doesn't necessarily have to involve utility.

>>4551801
I plan on it but the class is structured in a specific way and requires us to read several more books on top of shafer. I was just planning on reading thewhole book via following class curriculum

>>4551802
thanks for the explanation, what you says makes sense of why utilitarianism falls under consequentialism

but my shafer landau book is telling me that "consequentialism says that an action is morally required just because it produces the best results (i.e., s optimific)"

is that wrong^?

>>4551776
i'm the only person who gets to post liartown usa pictures. get off my turf.

people have already answered you but yes, utilitarianism is a consequentialist philosophy. there is no "difference" between the two, as utilitarianism merely builds atop consequentialism.

>Afaik, consequentialism is the belief that an action is moral if it brings about the greatest net benefit.

consequentialism is the belief that one should assess an item using the consequences of that item, which is obviously in line with utilitarianism. utilitarianism is different from other (but not all) forms of consequentialism in that it asserts that of all the consequences of an action, those that impact the welfare of humans (or sometimes animals proper) are morally defining.

>>4551812
>consequentialism says that an action is morally required just because it produces the best results
What a load of horse shit. Go read Nietzsche and know why surmounting morality is devious.

>>4551812
I reckon so bud, yeah. That seems more like a utilitarian definition, even if a loose one.

>>4551837
yeah, it's causing me some headaches since it's basically giving me a utilitarianism definition of consequentialism while telling me that utilitarianism is different from consequentialism

>>4551853
this is his definition of utilitarianism

Utilitarianism: endorses the idea the well-being is the thing that is truly worth having in of itself.
-an action is only morally correct if it does more to improve overall well-being than any other action that could’ve been taken.

alright guys, what's the basis of judgment of actions in utilitarianism

expected results or actual results (ex- I help an old man across the street and he gets hit by a bus right behind me- is this morally bad because of the result or morally acceptable because I reasonably thought that helping dis nigga across the street would help him)