> IAN: If we say there is "no possible way to construe
> utilitarianism as a 'me first' principle," we say
> the sets of "me first" (M) and utilitarianism (U)
> are disjoint, such that the intersection (^) of
> M and U is the null set(/), ergo: M ^ U = (/).
>
>You have incorrectly stated the nature of my statement.
IAN: I don't believe I did, but if so, sorry.
>Indeed, while deontology
>and consequentialism may sometimes agree on the same moral actions, they
>are two VERY distinct moral theories; there is no way you could construe
>one to be the other, despite the fact that they do have some overlap.
IAN: OK, but that introduces concpets not stated
previously. So which, "me first" or "ulilitarianism,"
are you saying is deontological and which consequential?
**************************************************************
VISIT IAN WILLIAMS GODDARD --------> http://Ian.Goddard.net
______________________________________________________________
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its
opponents and making them see the light, but rather because
its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows
up that is familiar with the idea from the beginning."
Max Plank - Nobel physicist
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual.
Those who deny individual rights cannot claim
to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand