Are all consequentialists retarded?

You use more food and resources than ten Africans, so we are going to kill you because the ends are more important, and that will allow for 10 lives to be saved and lifted out of extreme poverty.

Attached: 1BC89444-4961-41FF-AB5E-E30C0FC61D03.jpg (1024x768, 178K)

my life is worth more than an african

Not if you are a consequent

>trannies taking pictures in a public bathroom

absolutely shocking

utilitarianism (what you are describing) and consequentialism are not the same thing

utilitarianism is a kind of consequentialism, one that has been more or less discredited by any halfway intelligent and educated person

WHEN I SAY HYPO
YOU SAY THYROID

HYPO

Okay, I’ll play ball.
What kind of consequentialism are you referring to?
Any smart person knows both means and ends matter.
Ops pic is of a a anti fascist, which think using violence first is okay in certain situations

I wonder how long it would take the average polack to debate this kid into a corner.

Consequentialism just means you care about results, what those results should be is up to you.

Pictures like that are the best way you can possibly redpill normalfags away from leftist shite. Obviously most people will deny it, but humans hate retards on a fundamental level and if they think an organisation or ideology is full of that type, they'll steer well clear

You take a seat in a train and this guy sits opposite to you.
What would you do?

Brainlet

Attached: aiportraits_1563802443.jpg (1024x512, 66K)

>You're allowed to do that, but you're not allowed to be a Nazi ever.

So edgy. So risky. You know you're on the correct side of history when the government SECRETLY nurtures your movement.

Too much time. Nazis are actually low IQ morons with no debate skills

there are infinite "kinds" of consequentialism, because every person and group of people have different values that define whether a consequence(s) is good or bad and to what degree

the distinction between consequentialist and deontological thought only refers to *how you calculate* whether or not you should make any given action. it doesn't refer to the values themselves that inform this calculation

deontologists are extremely frustrating to work with about practical matters because they are completely inflexible and incapable of seeing the bigger picture. an example is dealing with histrionic women babbling about how drumpf is "locking up children." they see that children are being locked up, and their brains just stop there - we can't lock up the children, period! locking up children is bad!!! they cannot move past that and analyze the consequences that stem from the series of complex interdependent actors and dynamics involved in those children being "locked up"

Kommt nur her, es hat für euch alle was übrig ;-)

>locking up children is bad
Most deontologists would argue that this may be necessary to ensure the legal procedures of the state are enforced