<noinclude><pagequality level="3" user="Kathleen.wright5" /><div class="pagetext">{{rh|222|ETHICS|}}
</noinclude>conclude with a doubt. It is, I think, possible that, instead of saying, as our theory said, that an action is only right, when it produces consequences as good as any which would have followed from any other action which the agent ''would'' have done, ''if'' he had chosen, we should say instead that it is right whenever and only when the agent ''could not have done'' anything which would have produced better consequences: and that this "''could not'' have done" is ''not'' equivalent to "would not have done, ''if'' he had chosen," but is to be understood in the sense, whatever it may be, which is sufficient to entitle us to say that we have Free Will. If so, then our theory would be wrong, just to this extent. <noinclude>
<references/></div></noinclude>
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed in any way by the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its affiliates. In fact, we fucking despise them.
|
