In the first chapter I could kind of see how Hurka’s number scale of good and evil when applied to an agent could work. But I feel the system becomes too complicated for its own good when he adds intensity and value to the equation in chapter 2. Intensity and value are two variables, or wildcards in a way, that can equal out a lot of loving “goods” and hating “bads” which I think isn’t really fair. For example, loving a good with the same value as a bad you hate with the same intensity makes those equal and I don’t necessarily think that’s true. If someone hates stealing so much that they lock everything in their possession up, I don’t feel that action as an equal to donating charity to people who don’t have as much as you. Now those two might not correlate, but you get the picture. Also, with intensity and value there adds a certain mix of evening off goods. I don’t think Hurka really goes into this scenario which makes me wonder exactly how practical this system actually is when applied to real world events, situations and actions. For example, if someone loves a good of great value with little intensity then that is the same as someone loving a good of little value with great intensity. So let’s say someone volunteers at a soup kitchen once a month, is that the same as someone who just donates food to the soup kitchen four times a month? I don’t think so. Mathematically Hurka’s system works out, but I just don’t think it does when applied to the real world.