This topic may not be relevant to the current chapter that we are covering but it did strike my attention. It is in regards to the consequentialism and is meant to facilitate discussion rather than being posted to make a point.
     I remember someone in class mentioning the "timeliness of consequentialism" and in bringing this up it was noted that in certain scenarios, taking time to think about the potential results would lead to bad consequences. In the case where Professor Tresan is lecturing the class and a student begins seizing outside and he is the only one that is capable of saving this person's life. Consequentialists would argue that it would lead to bad consequences if Tresan dedicated a significant amount of time contemplating the consequences of saving the life of this student.
     In regards to our decisions, it is reasonable to believe that some of choices are based on intuition at least to some degree. Provided this, I believe that in some cases intuition drives our choices in the sphere of consequentialism. As defined in our readings, an intuitive level of thinking is "generally applied principles" that motivate our very decisions (i.e. kindness, honesty, courage, and loyalty). In general, I believe people are confronted by situations in which they have to react hastily and in some cases intuitively. Given the former example, Professor Tresan would act intuitively rather than sitting to think about the consequences. By this, I mean that he might base his decision to save him on kindness or even some moral inclination given that he is the only individual capable of saving the student's life. After all he is not morally obligated to save the student's life. In essence I believe that intuition is vital in our decision making in happenstances that require immediate reactions. Does anyone agree to what I am saying or is there something fundamentally incorrect about my statements?