I don't understand why this proves that "state of affairs" consequentialism is true? Say I believe we should evaluate morality on an act-by-act basis, where certain types of acts like murder, assault, theft, etc. are verboten.
This is "complete" - when given a list of acts for a person to do, a moral being would look at the kind of act, determine if it falles into a category. If it does, then it is prohibited. If it does not, then we don't care.
It's transitive - if we look at acts A, B, and C, then we can say that if A is murder, B is assault, and C is theft, that Murder is always worse then assault is always worse then theft, and thus Murder is alwasy worse then theft as an act.
It also seems to, technically, be complete. That's because you aren't assigning "probabilities" at all. An act either is or is not murder, assault, theft, etc. So sure perhaps a 42% chance of assault is outweighed by a 100% chance of theft, but you will never actually get a "42% chance of assault" (though presumably committing 100 thefts is worse then 42 assaults)
It is also independent for substatially the same reason.
So a perfectly moral being looking at this acts based view would fall under your perview and not be a consequentialist?
I don't understand why this proves that "state of affairs" consequentialism is true? Say I believe we should evaluate morality on an act-by-act basis, where certain types of acts like murder, assault, theft, etc. are verboten.
This is "complete" - when given a list of acts for a person to do, a moral being would look at the kind of act, determine if it falles into a category. If it does, then it is prohibited. If it does not, then we don't care.
It's transitive - if we look at acts A, B, and C, then we can say that if A is murder, B is assault, and C is theft, that Murder is always worse then assault is always worse then theft, and thus Murder is alwasy worse then theft as an act.
It also seems to, technically, be complete. That's because you aren't assigning "probabilities" at all. An act either is or is not murder, assault, theft, etc. So sure perhaps a 42% chance of assault is outweighed by a 100% chance of theft, but you will never actually get a "42% chance of assault" (though presumably committing 100 thefts is worse then 42 assaults)
It is also independent for substatially the same reason.
So a perfectly moral being looking at this acts based view would fall under your perview and not be a consequentialist?