Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The normative status of an action depends on its consequences according to consequentialism. The consequences of the actions of an agent may include other actions by this agent. Actualism and possibilism disagree on how later possible actions impact the normative status of the current action by the same agent.
These consequences (that no one consciously sought) would be (in the same way as it is for Engels [9] [10]) product of conflicts that confront actions from countless individuals. The deviation between the original intended goal and the product derived from conflicts would be a marxist equivalent to «unintended consequences.» [ 11 ]
For this reason, basic actions are simple while non-basic actions are complex. [26] It is often assumed that bodily movements are basic actions, like the pressing of one's finger against the trigger, while the consequences of these movements, like the firing of the gun, are non-basic actions. [3]
Consequent, in logic, the second half of a hypothetical proposition or consequences Consequentialism , a theory in philosophy in which the morality of an act is determined by its effects Unintended consequences
Action theory or theory of action is an area in philosophy concerned with theories about the processes causing willful human bodily movements of a more or less complex kind. . This area of thought involves epistemology, ethics, metaphysics, jurisprudence, and philosophy of mind, and has attracted the strong interest of philosophers ever since Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (Third B
Act utilitarianism evaluates an act by its actual consequences whereas rule utilitarianism evaluates an action by the consequences of its general or universal practice (by all other persons, and perhaps into the future and past as well). Rule utilitarianism is sometimes thought to avoid the problems associated with act utilitarianism. [3]
Reflex action or dogmatic fanaticism do not involve moral courage because such impulsive actions are not based upon moral reasoning. [2] Moral courage may also require physical courage when the consequences are punishment or other bodily peril. [3] Moral courage has been seen as the exemplary modernist form of courage. [4]
Robert Cummins, for example, argues that people should not be judged for their individual actions, but rather for how those actions "reflect on their character". If character (however defined) is the dominant causal factor in determining one's choices, and one's choices are morally wrong, then one should be held accountable for those choices ...