Consequentialism Options

[*Steven*]

Ends justifies the means.

[*Steven*]

Ooer didn't mean for that idea to come out. In regards to minorities, I think it's completely asinine to cater to their every needs and bend over backwards trying to help them and trying to make it look like we care about everyone. The minorities I'm talking about are the ones who complain about how much America sucks, and the ones who come over here illegally to take advantage of our medical system.

The 5$ was just an example I pulled out of my ass haha. Oh well, while we're on the topic of 5$... Say 5$ from this one person could be invested in a product/idea/w.e and would yield 100$ per person of a group of people. The government recognizes this as a significant gain for the 100 people to the not nearly as severe detriment of the individual. The individual doesn't want to but the government forces it. The individual is rich and the 100 people need the money desperately.

Now I know a lot of things are circumstantial, but should the loss to the minority/individual be minor in comparison to the gain of the rest, why not? This is all assuming that the detriment to the individual isn't going to change his lifestyle/way of life.



I don't know what I'm really talking about Just kinda ranting. I think the reason I made this thread is because I'm kinda tired of America trying to save face and be nice to every country/individual/group of people who get offended at the slightest thing.

For instance, Bubba stole a video tape of pr0n from Suzy Q. They get mad and take this to court, disputing a 15$ video tape. This shit you would think they would have the common sense to realize that the fees/time/effort put into it would prove to be a considerably larger opportunity cost than the gain of the video. Granted, the defendant would have to pay the other's lawyer fees, they still waste a substantial amount of time over a video tape. This kind of thing happens all the time and is clogging up the legal system. What if the people in the small claims courts just said "tough shit" and told them to get over it. They would get offended, maybe even their feelings hurt, but it would free up much of the legal system for more important matters (Suzy Q stole a pr0n dvd).

[Spirited Away]

Damn it, that was long. DOn't you know I have to sleep early so I can wake up early for work? Haha.

Ooer didn't mean for that idea to come out. In regards to minorities, I think it's completely asinine to cater to their every needs and bend over backwards trying to help them and trying to make it look like we care about everyone. The minorities I'm talking about are the ones who complain about how much America sucks, and the ones who come over here illegally to take advantage of our medical system.

That's fine that you think like that, but the fact is that our country wouldn't be where it is today on social policy if it never catered to minorities. In fact, I'm sure slavery wouldn't have been abolished at all and a woman would still be bondaged to her man if no one cared for minorities.

The 5$ was just an example I pulled out of my ass haha. Oh well, while we're on the topic of 5$... Say 5$ from this one person could be invested in a product/idea/w.e and would yield 100$ per person of a group of people. The government recognizes this as a significant gain for the 100 people to the not nearly as severe detriment of the individual. The individual doesn't want to but the government forces it. The individual is rich and the 100 people need the money desperately.

If it walks like communism and sounds like communism, it must stink like communism. It reeks of the lack of respect for private property and the freedom to control one's assets.

Continuing rom that logic because the cycle doesn't (cannot) stop, it doesn't matter if it's $5 from you or a million dollars that you don't have, the government will still take from you to satisfy the 100 people. If you don't mind being that one person coughing out the cash, I'd like to be among the 100 people enjoying your money.

Now I know a lot of things are circumstantial, but should the loss to the minority/individual be minor in comparison to the gain of the rest, why not? This is all assuming that the detriment to the individual isn't going to change his lifestyle/way of life.

Are we still on the subject of the end justifying the means? Because the saying doesn't apply to minorities alone. A government can oppress their people and seize and distribute private property for the good of the nation will say the end is justified by the means, but we both know that this government is a bad one.

This discussion is more like "one person should die so that 100 could be saved" or something.

I don't know what I'm really talking about Just kinda ranting. I think the reason I made this thread is because I'm kinda tired of America trying to save face and be nice to every country/individual/group of people who get offended at the slightest thing.

For instance, Bubba stole a video tape of pr0n from Suzy Q. They get mad and take this to court, disputing a 15$ video tape. This shit you would think they would have the common sense to realize that the fees/time/effort put into it would prove to be a considerably larger opportunity cost than the gain of the video. Granted, the defendant would have to pay the other's lawyer fees, they still waste a substantial amount of time over a video tape. This kind of thing happens all the time and is clogging up the legal system. What if the people in the small claims courts just said "tough shit" and told them to get over it. They would get offended, maybe even their feelings hurt, but it would free up much of the legal system for more important matters (Suzy Q stole a pr0n dvd).

Ah, I'm so sleepy right now so i'll answer to bubba tomorrow.