There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Talk:Consequentialism
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The problem with "actions are transient, consequences are lasting"[edit]
How do we define "lasting"? This has potential for reductio ad absurdum. Ultimately nothing is lasting apart from dissipated elementary particles after the heat death of the universe, and this will happen no matter what we do, so why bother? - LucidFox (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Why not bother? Just because nothing "matters over cosmic timescales" is not an argument against taking action. We define what's relevant, and on human timescales results do last a substantial period of time, albeit with the caveat that the metrics we use are inherently subjective. Carthage (talk) 06:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)