tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post5335749323897879570..comments2024-03-28T19:56:42.305-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Being a (counter)exampleAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-39675120597899545822021-05-19T11:36:02.684-05:002021-05-19T11:36:02.684-05:00We do need to break up various aspects of the acti...We do need to break up various aspects of the action and consider them separately for ease of moral evaluation. Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-82310057329894911162021-05-17T19:02:45.587-05:002021-05-17T19:02:45.587-05:00Personally, when I assess the ethical nature of an...Personally, when I assess the ethical nature of an action X, I take it that part of the moral calculus includes consequentialist worries about how much influence on others X has. <br /><br />This is at least an intuitive pull I have. So, I don't know how much sense it makes to say actions such as C are 'actually better' than actions like B: I would simply say B is better than C. What sense does it make to talk of actions as better than others absent certain *important* consequences, such as influence? One might as well say any bad action is good, *absent the very consideration that makes it bad*. Ibrahim Dagherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03429873450864113670noreply@blogger.com