Theistic morality

[The Omnissiunt One]

I guess one difference I see is that PU appears to rely so much on knowing the results that one can conclude different things depending on when the decision is made. The approach I take allows each behavior to be judged on its own, so to speak. So regardless of the ultimate result, x vs not x in my hypothetical, I could still judge x as being bad (let's assume x was A murdering his neighbor...to avoid an unnecessary disagreement, (I think we both agree that would be bad.)) while recognizing that some of the ultimate results are good.

As I said, I don't think knowledge of the future is necessary. We can make general principles for our life based on overwhelming evidence that certain things promote interests, while others don't. PU is very much for ethics in practice, rather than an entirely theoretically defensible system.

Having said that, I do want to say that I realize that such compartmentalization of such moral decisions/judgements is not limited to a view such as I take. I would guess that one could hold to PU and compartmentalize like I would (and maybe you even do this too when it comes down to practice). Consequently, my comment in the previous paragraph is really limited to our discussion and your position as you presented it.

Any thoughts on this?

Probably I wouldn't consider far-off possible consequences in each situation; you're right. One difference between the Golden Rule, which is compartmentalised to each situation in its immediate state, and PU, which isn't, is that PU provides a workable system for governments and the running of large organisations, with an eye on the long-term. For the individual, though, the conclusions of both philosophies would be much the same.