![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is consequentialism essentially the same as utilitarianism, or would utilitarianism be a subset of consequentialism, in that it favors a specific kind of consequence? I went ahead and excised this portion:
EVCM ( talk) 18:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Utilitarianism is a kind of consequentialism. Darimoma ( talk) 10:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
References
Wasn't Timothy McVeigh basically a consequentialist libertarian (and possibly even a utilitarian)? He said, "I have great respect for human life. My decision to take human life at the Murrah Building – I did not do it for personal gain. I ease my mind in that...I did it for the larger good." He's basically saying, It was necessary to kill a certain number of innocent people so that many more deaths could be avoided (e.g. from incidents similar to Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc.; which the bombing was intended to deter the government from carrying out) EVCM ( talk) 07:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm somewhat skeptical the line "who use utilitarian consequentialist arguments to justify libertarian philosophies." - one of the defining features of the way Friedman sets up his arguments in, for example, "The Machinery of Freedom" is that they are consequentialist without being utilitarian. ( Entiex ( talk) 09:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC))
Consequentialism is itself a type of moral code, and therefore is NOT the same as amoralism or moral skepticism. So until someone can provide the proper citation(s), I am removing this unsubstantiated and contradictory sentence, "A number of libertarians are amoralists, thus lending them to the consequentialist libertarian school" along with Amoralism and Moral skepticism in the See Also section, due to their irrelevance. -- Adam9389 ( talk) 23:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Someone made an edit assuming that there was such thing as someone called a "consequentialist libertarian" who happens to be a socialist. I haven't seen a source saying this. A consequentialist can be a socialist of course, but the term "consequentialist LIBERTARIAN" appears to have only been applied to free market capitalists. Big Large Monster ( talk) 18:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Why do Neo-Liberal Libertarians get a monopoly on the concequentialist label? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.125.230.135 ( talk) 02:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I second this. The Niskanen Center would seem to lean in this direction, see e.g. https://niskanencenter.org/blog/libertarian-principles-niskanen-and-welfare-policy/ Carleas ( talk) 22:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Consequentialist libertarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is consequentialism essentially the same as utilitarianism, or would utilitarianism be a subset of consequentialism, in that it favors a specific kind of consequence? I went ahead and excised this portion:
EVCM ( talk) 18:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Utilitarianism is a kind of consequentialism. Darimoma ( talk) 10:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
References
Wasn't Timothy McVeigh basically a consequentialist libertarian (and possibly even a utilitarian)? He said, "I have great respect for human life. My decision to take human life at the Murrah Building – I did not do it for personal gain. I ease my mind in that...I did it for the larger good." He's basically saying, It was necessary to kill a certain number of innocent people so that many more deaths could be avoided (e.g. from incidents similar to Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc.; which the bombing was intended to deter the government from carrying out) EVCM ( talk) 07:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm somewhat skeptical the line "who use utilitarian consequentialist arguments to justify libertarian philosophies." - one of the defining features of the way Friedman sets up his arguments in, for example, "The Machinery of Freedom" is that they are consequentialist without being utilitarian. ( Entiex ( talk) 09:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC))
Consequentialism is itself a type of moral code, and therefore is NOT the same as amoralism or moral skepticism. So until someone can provide the proper citation(s), I am removing this unsubstantiated and contradictory sentence, "A number of libertarians are amoralists, thus lending them to the consequentialist libertarian school" along with Amoralism and Moral skepticism in the See Also section, due to their irrelevance. -- Adam9389 ( talk) 23:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Someone made an edit assuming that there was such thing as someone called a "consequentialist libertarian" who happens to be a socialist. I haven't seen a source saying this. A consequentialist can be a socialist of course, but the term "consequentialist LIBERTARIAN" appears to have only been applied to free market capitalists. Big Large Monster ( talk) 18:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Why do Neo-Liberal Libertarians get a monopoly on the concequentialist label? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.125.230.135 ( talk) 02:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I second this. The Niskanen Center would seem to lean in this direction, see e.g. https://niskanencenter.org/blog/libertarian-principles-niskanen-and-welfare-policy/ Carleas ( talk) 22:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Consequentialist libertarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)