There are some bad decisions in life, and some good decisions. Suppose most of us are aware of the difference between these two tokens of the type, decisions. Yet, knowing a decision is good or bad, what makes someone choose the bad? There must be a justification for choosing one over the other. I’m a Utilitarian. If a decision does not promote the most aggregate utility (i.e. a bad decision would not qualify for having more utility than a good decision), then why decide bad over good? I cannot wrap my head around why, other than the fact that to err is human.
Recently, I’ve been making a string of bad decisions. Though, following my Utilitarian strain, if an action was inherently bad but the outcome good, what then? Well, I guess that’s why Utlitarians are not an action-based ethical principal, but a consequentialist ethical principal? The problem with Utilitarianism is the problem in my question as well. An action might produce an immediate sense of goodness, only to later produce badness; which consequence is of the most value?
Do people take only the short-term consequences into consideration? I mean, it’s impossible to look into the future to know the outcome of every action. Hm… hahaha I just reconstructed an argument for the failure of Utilitarianism… and do note that I am a Utilitarian.
Anyway, this got more philosophical when I’d wanted it to be more emotional. So much for that.
A small victory (?): Finally cried in front of David after being friends for over 5 years. He biked right on over when he realized that I was feeling sad. It was still hard to cry… I’m not much for showing my negative/sad emotions to people because it’s such a private thing. But it was a step toward sharing my feelings?
A small loss: Being at a loss.
