Losing a third of our inactive members . It ' s called pruning . Gotta cut out the dead in order to continue growing . <| sep |> Doc , we need to get you a book or something because this mix and match shit has got to go . <| sep |> Hit them up on their chat , and ask what the deal is . I agree , that that ' s pretty unreasonable , to keep pushing yours back like that , but on the bright side at least you have one locked in . <| sep |> I know dog obesity is not ok , but I love overweight Basset Hounds . <| sep |> You have to disambiguate between 1 . The moral heuristics that human beings can and ought to pragmatically use . These are the things that we would more commonly regard as morals . The study of these is known as ' normative ethics '. 2 . The source of moral value . i . e . what it is it about some actevent that makes it morally permissiblegoodbad ? . Typically , it is this that philosophers are talking about when they talk about a ' moral theory ', and it is part of ' metaethics '. Utilitarianism , or indeed any form of consequentialism , is fundamentally a theory about 2 . , and only might have something to say about 1 . e . g . socalled ' rule ' utilitarianism , which isn ' t a moral theory at all . When it comes to 2 . , it is completely correct to say that intentions don ' t matter . The fact that a person ' s intent is good does not render that particular act higher in moral value using a Utilitarian , or any consequentialist , calculus . What it does do , at the heuristic level , is give us sound reasons within normative ethics to rate those deeds done with bad intent mens reus worse than those without . That ' s because , as a general rule , acts committed with mens reus will result in worse acts not judged by intention than those without .