> No, mate. The set of doers of great evil (dE) is here wholly subsumed by
> the set of those who believe they're doing good (bG) - so there's room
left
> in the set (BG) for people who believe they're doing good actually to do
> good (dbG).
>
> I'd love to know what bG minus dE equalled.
>
> Perhaps that remainder lack an arrogant certainty that the desired future
> will be (a) an inevitable result of the proposed action, and (b) so good
as
> to be worth any price, to anyone?
>
> Or am I revealing my conservative essence?
>
> Cheers,
> Rob.
I see no reason on a philosophical or psychological level to buy this argument. Isn't it more likely that those who fail to promote the general welfare do so not out of any mistaken illusions (though they're certainly common enough) about what composes the greatest good but rather because they're pursuing their own self-interests or the interests of some sect to which they belong? Lacking any evidence to the contrary, I think it's reasonable to assume that unintended consequences balance out over the long run.
-- Luke