Just a short correction to a former post.
Consequtialism is focused on consequences, not "ends". Utility is focused on "ends".
Consequentialism is a form of responsibility for outcomes, while utility is the focus of what is desired as ends.
What is desired sometimes can be dependent on hedonism while other times it is evaluated on virtue.
I think consequentialism cannot be "fair" in the real world, because how do we determine who is responsible for what, or when a society has agreed upon certain actions, or choices? Is leadership then, to be held solely accountable to such choices, that have consequences on others?
As to utility, hedonism should not be an ultimate end in life, but virtue is hard to define or form for another, unless the society values personal choice as to value. Otherwise, utlity ends up being a way to force a particular "form" of virtue upon another. This is a form of co-erciveness in the name of "character training"!
Virtue has to be understood within the context of the individual's values and choice and not an outside "form". Virtue is about innate gifting and development, not controlling another's "outcome". The "outcome" will result whenever there is a focus on the person and their particular personal choice of "ends".
Patrons Only: Abraham in the New Testament
2 hours ago