keeping up promises (pt. 3)

I'm going to be a bit lazy today. If the morality jibber-jabber is not so entertaining and you prefer my pointless postings (isn't it all rather pointless?) skip to part two.

Mr. Hooker has presented his rule-consequentialism thus:

"An act is wrong if it is forbidden by the code of rules whose interalization by the overwhelming majority of everyone everywhere in each new generation has maximum expected value in terms of well-being (with some priority for the worst off). The calculation of a code's expected value includes all costs of getting the code internalized. If in terms of expected value two or more codes are better than the rest but equal to one another, the one closest to conventional morality determines what acts are wrong." (citation of source would go here if I weren't so lazy.)

Follow the link to read all about the new issue I'm grapple-hooking to from across they chasym. It's the first part of trying to understand what all of the above means. Mr. Hooker gives out that he's on the objective list side of things, but with some reservations as to autonomy and fairness... I think...

PART TWO!!!

Today, I saw a woman trying to flag down a bus. She was walking along like she was ready to break out into a run except she was also holding a paper cup with some sort of liquid in her hand and was trying not to spill the contents. Judging by her actions, I can only surmise that the bus driver didn't see her trying to flag him down, becuase she took desperate action. Splashing the water onto the pavement in a flourish and spray, she broke out into a full on sprint.

I'll never know if she made that bus. I was too busy replaying the scenario in my head and laughing about it. I can hear her internal monologue. "Damn it, that bus is gunna leave. I'm gunna spill this water if I go any faster. Awe shit, he's leavin'! Damnit!!! Fuck this!!!" Splashes water and runs.

What a great country we live in. (Party finds you!)