counterfactual (conditional) would/will question

[billybooth]

hi, this is the first of what i'm sure will be many posts here at testmagic. Oh, I guess I should use proper punctuation and capitalization considering the subject matter. Anyways, I have a question about counterfactual propositions. Are the following statements both counterfactual?

"I should follow the rule that will, upon adoption, produce the best consequences"

"I should follow the rule that, if adopted, would produce the best consequences"

It is obvious that the second statement is, but my concern lies with the first one. It seems that it is conditional (e.g., "if adopted"), but the verb "will" is not subjunctive (forgive me if I'm misusing any of these grammatical terms).

What I'm really getting at (...I'm a philosophy undergrad [hence the moral example]), is whether or not the two statements provided are grammatically equivalent. Do they mean the same thing, or does the "would/will" tense difference make the meanings different. Any thoughts?

[armie480]

Hi billybooth

Both sentences are fine but not equivalent. I would say that in the first example the adoption of the rule is more probable if not to say nearly done. In the second sentence, you are not at all certain; it seems unlikely that the rule will be adopted.

'Would' compared to 'will' always denotes less certainty (and/or more politeness). E.g. I would go for a walk (=I think why not, or I politely suggest that you go). I will go for a walk (=I've decided so).

HTH!