should could mean "moral necessity"; doesn't mean you have to present a plan or assume that it gets passed.
that's a general meaning, sure, but this is specific to what most people would consider a policy resolution, usually with a plan, so...
Consequentialist meaning the end justifying the means - pre-conseq is looking not at the end but at the means justified. The K is consequentialist insofar as we say that the ethics are bad and the alt solves, but pre-conseq when compared to the case.
lol i know what consequentialism is, and that made no sense.
if you're looking at the means, then it's not "pre-consequentialist," it's deontological ethics, which is the opposite of consequentialist ethics.
But I'm not looking at how it relates to a truth, I'm looking at how it impacts the real world. I agree with your earlier statement that with the argument we're prioritizing impacts - that's why I called it pre-conseq and not conseq or deont (and it's not just me; I grabbed a lot of this including that term from the round I mentioned in the OP).
then you say the K is consequentialist and not consequentialist. (in your terms, consequentialist and "pre-conseq")
then you say that something can be consequentialist, but non consequentialist when compared relative to something else.
none of which makes sense.
I was expounding in a different way upon what you said about prioritizing impacts.
Relative to the debate world of hypothetical argumentation, it's pre-conseq, because it's looking at the k impacts before we evaluate the implications of the plan. Another reason why I say "pre" and not deont. pre- implies (means) before, and we're looking at the k before the case, so.
just take out "pre-consequentialist," which has zero literature backing it and has a total of four results on google, one of which is your posts on another debate forum about this very same framework
Upon first reading/hearing it, what did it strike you as?