"Good will is not necessarily the way to the good. If your action while
good intentioned is based on bad information it leads to bad results.
The good comes about from acting on good information and good will. "
Only if you assume that the good of an act is to be found in its
consequences. You may assume this, but your assumption constitutes no
sweeping victory for consequentialist ethics.
Nate also wrote:
"Hegel was a favorite of the communists. He provided the poisoned water
from which they choose to drink."
Darwin was a favorite of eugenicists, laize faire capitalists, and
CoVers. That doesn't mean that Darwin was affiliated with or
sympathetic to any of those causes.
Richard seemed to chastize David for using the vocabulary of teleology
(or 'teleonomy' as Dawkins calls it.) Making teleogical explanations
respectable is a major goal of Dawkins and his "lap-dog," Daniel
Dennett, who pushes teleonomy in the form of his "intensional stance"
explanations for behavior. This struck me as a strange sort of
criticism.
Take care all. -KMO