question_text: who got voted off survivor november 1st 2017

text: Contestants[edit]

text: The entire cast was officially announced on August 30, 2017.[4] The cast is composed of 18 new players, initially split into three tribes containing six members each; Levu ("Heroes"), Soko ("Healers"), and Yawa ("Hustlers").

text:
List of Survivor: Heroes vs. Healers vs. Hustlers contestants

Contestant
Original tribe
Switched tribe
Merged tribe
Finish

Radke, KatrinaKatrina Radke
46, Excelsior, Minnesota
Levu

18 !1st voted out
Day 3

Nguyen, SimoneSimone Nguyen
25, New York City, New York
Yawa
17 !2nd voted out
Day 6

Bolton, PatrickPatrick Bolton
24, Auburn, Alabama
Yawa
16 !3rd voted out
Day 8

Ball, AlanAlan Ball
32, Houston, Texas
Levu
Levu
15 !4th voted out
Day 11

Luskin, RoarkRoark Luskin
27, Santa Monica, California
Soko
Soko
14 !5th voted out
Day 14

Elliott, Alexandrea "Ali"Alexandrea "Ali" Elliott
24, Los Angeles, California
Yawa
Soko
13 !6th voted out
Day 16

Johnston, JessicaJessica Johnston
29, Louisville, Kentucky
Soko
Yawa
Solewa
12 !7th voted out
Day 19

Williams, Desiree "Desi"Desiree "Desi" Williams
27, Newport News, Virginia
Soko
Levu
11 !8th voted out
1st jury member
Day 21

Medders, ColeCole Medders
24, Little Rock, Arkansas
Soko
Yawa
10 !9th voted out
2nd jury member
Day 24

Hilsabeck, John Paul "JP"John Paul "JP" Hilsabeck
28, Los Angeles, California
Levu
Soko
9 !10th voted out
3rd jury member
Day 27

Mena, JoeJoe Mena
34, Tolland, Connecticut
Soko
Levu
8 !11th voted out
4th jury member
Day 30

Rimmer, LaurenLauren Rimmer
35, Beaufort, North Carolina
Yawa
Yawa
7 !12th voted out
5th jury member
Day 33

Nolan, AshleyAshley Nolan
26, Satellite Beach, Florida
Levu
Levu
6 !13th voted out
6th jury member
Day 36

Zahalsky, MikeMike Zahalsky
43, Parkland, Florida
Soko
Yawa
5 !14th voted out
7th jury member
Day 37

Pinto, DevonDevon Pinto
23, Solana Beach, California
Yawa
Levu
4 !Eliminated
8th jury member
Day 38

Ulrich, RyanRyan Ulrich
23, North Arlington, New Jersey
Yawa
Soko
2nd runner-up

Hofbeck, ChrissyChrissy Hofbeck
46, Lebanon Township, New Jersey
Levu
Soko
Runner-up

Driebergen, BenBen Driebergen
34, Boise, Idaho
Levu
Yawa
Sole Survivor

text: Season summary[edit]

text: The 18 players were initially divided into three tribes: Levu (Heroes), Soko (Healers), and Yawa (Hustlers). Yawa went to Tribal Council twice. Despite losing only one member, Levu was dysfunctional due to paranoia while Soko was undefeated. Following a tribe switch, former Yawa member Ryan found himself in a swing vote position on the new Soko tribe, and ultimately decided to flip on his close ally Ali, and align with former Levu tribe member Chrissy.

text: When the tribes merged, the former Heroes and Hustlers aligned to eliminate the remaining Healers. This alliance of 7 controlled the first few votes, but it eventually splintered as a final four alliance of Lauren, Ben, Ashley and Devon was formed. This alliance also splintered as Ben soon became the main target for being the biggest threat. However, Ben managed to successfully play three hidden immunity idols to reach the final 4 along with Chrissy, Ryan and Devon. When Chrissy won the final immunity challenge, she had to choose one castaway to take to the final 3 which would force the remaining two to compete against each other in a firemaking tiebreaker challenge. She chose to save Ryan. Ben defeated Devon in the firemaking challenge to join Chrissy and Ryan in the finals.

text: At the Final Tribal Council, Ben was praised for finding multiple hidden immunity idols and making it to the end despite being a massive target while Chrissy was commended for dominating in immunity challenges, but both were criticized for their lack of social games, while Ryan was criticized for his lack of strategic conversations and work ethic. Ultimately, Ben was awarded the title of Sole Survivor over Chrissy and Ryan in a 5–2–1 vote.

text:
Challenge winners and eliminations by episodes

Episode title
Original air date
Challenge winner(s)
Eliminated
Finish

Reward
Immunity

"I'm Not Crazy, I'm Confident"
September 27, 2017
Soko
Soko
Katrina
1st voted out
Day 3

Levu
Yawa

"I'm a Wild Banshee"
October 4, 2017
Soko
Simone
2nd voted out
Day 6

Levu

"My Kisses Are Very Private"
October 11, 2017
Levu
Patrick
3rd voted out
Day 8

Soko

"I Don't Like Having Snakes Around"
October 18, 2017
Yawa
Yawa
Alan
4th voted out
Day 11

Soko

"The Past Will Eat You Alive"
October 25, 2017
Levu
Yawa
Roark
5th voted out
Day 14

Yawa
Levu

"This is Why You Play Survivor"
November 1, 2017
Soko
Yawa
Ali
6th voted out
Day 16

Yawa
Levu

"Get to Gettin'"
November 8, 2017
None[a]
Desi
Jessica
7th voted out
Day 19

"Playing with the Devil"
November 15, 2017
Chrissy,
Cole,
Devon,
JP,
Ryan,
[Joe]
Cole
Desi
11 !8th voted out
1st jury member
Day 21

"Fear of the Unknown"
November 22, 2017
Chrissy,
Cole,
JP,
Joe,
Mike
Lauren
Cole
10 !9th voted out
2nd jury member
Day 24

"Buy One, Get One Free"
November 29, 2017
Lauren
[Ashley,
Ben,
Devon]
Ashley
JP
9 !10th voted out
3rd jury member
Day 27

Ashley,
Ben,
Devon,
Joe
Chrissy
Joe
8 !11th voted out
4th jury member
Day 30

"Not Going to Roll Over and Die"
December 6, 2017
Chrissy
[Ashley,
Mike,
Ryan]
Ashley
Lauren
7 !12th voted out
5th jury member
Day 33

"The Survivor Devil"
December 13, 2017
Chrissy,
Devon
[Ryan]
Chrissy[b]
Ashley
6 !13th voted out
6th jury member
Day 36

"Million Dollar Night"
December 20, 2017
Chrissy
[Devon, Mike][c]
Mike
5 !14th voted out
7th jury member
Day 37

None
Chrissy
[Ryan][d]
Devon
4 !Eliminated[d]
8th jury member
Day 38

"Reunion Special"

Jury vote

Ryan
2nd runner-up

Chrissy
Runner-up

Ben
Sole Survivor

text:
Jump up ^ There was no reward challenge due to the merge.
Jump up ^ Ben played a hidden immunity idol before the votes were cast at Tribal Council, earning additional immunity from the vote.
Jump up ^ The winner of the challenge also received reward.
^ Jump up to: a b For winning the Final Immunity Challenge, Chrissy was secretly informed of a twist set to take place at that night's Tribal Council. Chrissy had to give additional immunity to one of the other remaining castaways; she chose Ryan. Then, instead of a vote, the final elimination would be determined by a fire-making duel between the remaining two castaways, Ben and Devon. Ben won, making Devon the 15th player eliminated from the game.

text: Episodes[edit]

text:
No.
overall
No. in
season
Title
CBS recap
Rating/share
(18-49)
Original air date
U.S. viewers
(millions)
Weekly
rank

513
1
"I'm Not Crazy, I'm Confident"
Recap
1.8/7[5]
September 27, 2017 (2017-09-27)
8.33[5]
23[6]

Jeff welcomed the 18 new castaways to the 35th season of Survivor. He explained to them that they have been divided into three tribes based on the positive traits most associated with them by others: Heroes, Healers, and Hustlers.

Reward Challenge: On the beach nearby, each tribe has an urn which is on fire and is 15 feet in the air. Each tribe is allowed to gather as many supplies as they can until Jeff rings the bell on the boat. Then, each tribe must get all six members on their boat and paddle to the beach. When they get to shore, they must lift one person high enough to light their torch. The first tribe to light their torch wins fire in the form of a massive fire making kit that will be waiting for them back at their camp. The second tribe to light their torch will win flint. The losers will go back to camp with no fire-making tools.

During the challenge, Ryan found a secret advantage. The Healers and Heroes came in first and second, respectively, while the Hustlers went completely off course. The Healers tribe had no problem creating fire with their kit, while Jessica developed an attraction towards Cole. The next day, Mike decided to look for a hidden immunity idol, but Joe became suspicious of Mike's absence and confronted him over what he had been doing. At the Heroes tribe, a majority formed between Alan, Ashley, Ben, and JP, but Alan became suspicious over Ashley and JP's bond. Still intimidated by their connection the following night, he pulled JP aside and asked him if he had a hidden immunity idol. Despite JP pulling out his pockets and stripping nude to prove he is not hiding anything on his body, Alan continued to harass JP over having an idol. This irked Ashley, who wondered whether aligning with Alan was a good idea. At the Hustlers tribe, Patrick and Ali aligned, while Ryan learned his "secret advantage," was a "super immunity idol" that can be played after the votes are read. This advantage can only be used at the first Tribal Council. If his tribe does not go to the first Tribal Council, he must send it to someone on the losing tribe, who will not be aware of who sent the advantage. Ryan informed Devon of this advantage, and offered to use it on him in the event they end up at Tribal Council, forming a final 2 deal.

Immunity Challenge: The castaways will race up a cargo net to the top of a tower. Each tribe will then pull a heavy cart up the tower, then hop in and quickly roll down to the bottom. At the bottom will be three different table mazes. The first tribe to reach the mazes will get first choice of which maze they want to tackle. The second tribe will get to choose between the remaining two mazes. The last tribe will be left with the maze that remains. Next, they will work together as a tribe to get their maze to the top of an even taller tower. Once at the top of the tower, two players from each tribe will maneuver three balls through their maze. The first two tribes to finish win immunity.

After Ben and Chrissy's poor maneuvering of the maze, the Healers and Hustlers won immunity, sending the Heroes to Tribal Council and forcing Ryan to will his advantage. At the Heroes camp, the majority decided to send Katrina home over Chrissy, but the tension between Alan and Ashley still lingered. Alan later approached Chrissy and Katrina with a plan to vote out Ashley, and tried to convince Ben in joining them. Ben tried to assure Alan that Ashley and JP were loyal to them, but Alan was still paranoid over the potential couple. Before Tribal Council, Chrissy learned that she had been given the secret advantage.
At Tribal Council, Ashley called Alan out for his irrational behavior, while Alan openly stated that he did not trust Ashley or JP and warned his other tribemates about them becoming a power couple. He also divulged that the initial discussion was between voting out Chrissy and Katrina. Ultimately, the plan to vote out Katrina was followed and she became the first person voted out in a unanimous vote.

514
2
"I'm a Wild Banshee"
Recap
1.6/6[7]
October 4, 2017 (2017-10-04)
8.15[7]
20[8]

After returning from Tribal Council, Chrissy felt more secure about her spot in the game. At the Hustlers camp, Simone was pleased with her conquering of the outdoors, but her bragging and laziness set most of her tribemates off, while Ali approached Simone about working together. At the Healers camp, Cole and Jessica bonded over a fishing trip, while Joe began looking for a hidden immunity idol. After misinterpreting the clue as pointing towards the fishing raft, Joe had Cole help him find the idol. At the Heroes camp, JP established himself as the tribe’s provider to keep the target off his back, while Chrissy formed an alliance with Ben after weighing her options. Back at the Hustlers camp, Patrick tried to amuse his tribemates by acting boisterously around camp, but Lauren saw him as too unpredictable to keep around and voiced her concerns to Ali.

Reward/Immunity Challenge: Three members of each tribe will swim out to a floating net ring. They will then dive down and maneuver a bundle of puzzle pieces through a cage. Once a tribe has collected all three bundles, the two remaining tribe members will use those pieces to solve a sign post puzzle. The first two tribes to finish win immunity and are safe from the vote. In addition, the first tribe to finish wins a fishing kit with traps, net, knife, line, lures, and sinkers. The second tribe to finish wins a smaller fishing kit with lines and lures. The last tribe to finish wins no reward, but will go to Tribal Council where one member will be the second person voted out.

Despite the Hustlers starting the puzzle first, Simone’s inability to assist resulted in the loss for the Hustlers, while the Healers & Heroes placed first and second, respectively. Simone apologized to the tribe for costing them the victory and asked Lauren to join her in voting out Patrick. Patrick and Ryan agreed on voting out Simone, while Ali weighed her options with Ryan.
At Tribal Council, Patrick and Simone each pled their case, with Patrick stating tribe strength is important while Simone stated that trust is more important. In an accidental slip-up, Patrick said he could trust most of his tribemates, when he meant to say “all,” raising some concern amongst his tribemates. However, Patrick was spared, and Simone was unanimously voted out.

515
3
"My Kisses Are Very Private"
Recap
1.7/7[9]
October 11, 2017 (2017-10-11)
8.02[9]
19[10]

The morning after Simone’s elimination, Ryan and Patrick agreed on a guys’ alliance with Lauren as their first target, while Lauren still wanted Patrick gone, as Patrick’s social game was lacking. Patrick also openly searched for a hidden immunity idol, which caused his tribemates to distrust him. Ali tried convincing Patrick to calm down, and he appreciated that she was looking out for him. At the Heroes camp, Ben and Chrissy were torn between voting out JP or Alan. Ben was wary about JP and Ashley’s perceived status as a power couple, while Alan struggled with camp life. At the Healers camp, Cole and Jessica’s mutual romantic interest continued. Joe believed that Mike would be a unanimous target, but Cole told Jessica about Joe’s idol. After Joe complained about the way Roark prepared food and threw it away instead of offering it to his tribemates, Cole prematurely leaked the idol information to Roark and Desi, to Jessica’s shock and dismay.

Immunity/Reward Challenge: All tribe members race through a series of obstacles. They use sandbags to knock blocks off a ledge. Next, they will stack those blocks one on top of the other. The first two tribes to finish win immunity and are safe from the vote. In addition, the first tribe to finish wins four live chickens. The second tribe to finish wins a dozen eggs. The last tribe to finish wins no reward and a trip to Tribal Council where somebody will be the third person voted out.

The Heroes placed first, while the Healers placed second despite forgetting a block. Patrick’s refusal to swap out during the throwing segment led to another loss for the Hustlers, and he apologized for his actions in the challenge. Lauren was angry with Patrick, and the way he responded to her asking if she was the target due to his selfish competitiveness in the challenge set her off even more. Ali, Devon, and Ryan debated on whether to vote out Lauren or Patrick.
At Tribal Council, Lauren passionately campaigned for Patrick’s elimination. Patrick promised to integrate with his tribe better, but they never gave him the chance; after being voted out unanimously, Patrick had harsh words for his former tribemates as his torch was snuffed, and he became the third person eliminated from the game.

516
4
"I Don't Like Having Snakes Around"
Recap
1.8/7[11]
October 18, 2017 (2017-10-18)
8.12[11]
17[12]

On day 9, the castaways were surprised when Jeff announced a tribe swap. The new Levu tribe consisted of Heroes Alan & Ashley, Healers Desi & Joe, and lone Hustler Devon. The new Soko tribe consisted of Heroes Chrissy & JP, lone Healer Roark, and Hustlers Ali & Ryan. The new Yawa tribe consisted of lone Hero Ben, Healers Cole, Jessica & Mike, and lone Hustler Lauren. Jeff also announced a winner-take-all reward challenge to test how well the new tribes worked together.

Reward Challenge: Three members of each tribe will be attached to a braided rope and must work together to untangle themselves and progress through a course. They will then use the rope to hook a sled and pull it back to them. The two remaining tribe members will use the pieces on the sled to solve an upright puzzle. The first tribe to finish wins a feast of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and an individual bag of potato chips for each tribe member.

By a narrow margin, Jessica and Mike solved their puzzle for Yawa first, winning reward for their tribe. As the new Yawa tribe members got to know each other better, Jessica discovered a secret advantage in her bag of chips that allowed her to block a person from voting to be used only at the next Tribal Council. She told Cole and Mike to build trust and keep the original Healers tribe intact, but Cole used the information to gain trust with Ben and Lauren, confusing the latter as to why he would tell her about it. She told Mike, who confronted Jessica and Cole over telling Lauren. After initial denials, Cole admitted only to telling Ben, which upset Jessica. At the new Soko tribe, Roark worried about her position within the tribe as the lone Healer, while Ryan and Chrissy aligned after he told her he was the one who gave her the super idol for the first Tribal Council. At the new Levu tribe, Ashley and Alan put aside their differences to target a Healer, while Joe told Devon the Heroes were targeting him so that he would side with the Healers, but Devon saw through the lie.

Immunity Challenge: Each tribe will race out to a large crate of puzzle pieces. Next, they will maneuver their crate through a series of obstacles. Once they reach the finish, they will unlock their second set of puzzle pieces. They will arrange those pieces so to complete a giant puzzle. The first two tribes to finish win immunity, and the losing tribe will go to Tribal Council where somebody will be the fourth person voted out.

Yawa easily finished first, while Soko placed second. At the Levu camp, Devon was the swing vote; he asked Ashley if she was targeting him, which she denied. Desi overheard the conversation and relayed it to Joe, who presumed that Devon would side with the Heroes. In an effort to get the target on his back so he would play his immunity idol, Joe confronted his entire tribe, and a heated argument ensued between him and Alan. Desi tried to convince Joe to give her his idol to gain her trust, while Devon saw that he received Jessica’s advantage, not to be opened until voting takes place.
At Tribal Council, Joe targeted Ashley as the weakest link, while the old Heroes & Healers each campaigned for Devon’s vote. Devon opened his advantage and was shocked to learn his vote had been blocked. Before the votes were read, Joe stood up to play his idol. After some deliberation, he decided to play it for himself after catching Ashley’s facial expression, and the two votes against him were negated. The Healers’ votes went against Alan, and he was eliminated.

517
5
"The Past Will Eat You Alive"
Recap
1.7/7[13]
October 25, 2017 (2017-10-25)
8.22[13]
17[14]

At the Yawa camp, the loud crackling of bamboo in the fire reminded Ben of his difficult time in the United States Marine Corps. He removed himself from the camp to clear his head, while his tribemates showed concern for his well-being.

Reward Challenge: The contestants will have their arms and legs bound together and they must slither through the sand while pushing a ball relay style through the course. When they reach the finish, the remaining tribe member will shoot five balls into a very high and narrow basket. The first tribe to finish will win iced coffee, pastries, extra coffee, and tea to take back to camp. The second tribe to finish gets one jug of iced coffee.

Levu easily cruised to first place, and Yawa placed second after Ryan struggled for Soko in the challenge. Devon still felt threatened by Joe and pledged his allegiance to Ashley, and they discussed bringing in Desi against Joe. At the Soko camp, Ryan apologized for losing the challenge for his tribe, but relied on his social game to further himself. Roark still felt uneasy about her position within the tribe and aligned with Ali, who suggested to Ryan that they target Chrissy. Ryan was reluctant to turn against Chrissy, but he kept his options open. At the Yawa camp, Cole annoyed his tribemates with his poor eating manners, while Mike and Jessica discovered a hidden immunity idol at the water well.

Immunity Challenge: The contestants will swim out to a boat and retrieve three bags of rice, push them through a hole and transport them across a balance beam to shore. They must then tear open each bag to retrieve three balls and maneuver them through a balance maze. The first two tribes to finish win immunity. The losers will go to Tribal Council where somebody will be the fifth person voted out.

Yawa placed first and Levu placed second, sending Soko to their first Tribal Council of the season. Chrissy approached Roark about strategy for the first time, but Roark targeted Chrissy for her poor challenge performance; to save herself, Chrissy told JP that Roark proposed an all-girls’ alliance, and JP instantly agreed to vote out Roark. Ali again talked to Ryan about voting out Chrissy, and Ryan realized he was the swing vote. At Tribal Council, Roark and Chrissy each campaigned against the other, but ultimately, Ryan sided with Chrissy to eliminate Roark from the game.

518
6
"This is Why You Play Survivor"
Recap
1.6/6[15]
November 1, 2017 (2017-11-01)
7.69[15]
20[16]

After Tribal Council, Ali confronted Ryan over why he left her out of the vote against Roark, and a defensive Ryan replied that he was scared of Ali and Roark’s bond. Ali and Ryan subsequently got into an argument. At the Yawa camp, Mike caught a small fish and accidentally dropped it in the fire, but he recovered it and even shared the fish with his tribemates, while Cole ate a bigger fish for himself, annoying Ben. Cole continued to rub his tribemates the wrong way by arguing that he hasn’t been eating enough.

Reward Challenge: The castaways will race through an obstacle course; pairs of castaways will carry a buoy using poles across a teeter-totter balance beam, which will release a key that is used to unlock the tribe’s boat. They must untie the knots and pull the boat to a platform where one tribe member will use a slingshot to knock down two targets. The first tribe to finish wins 10 pizzas and soft drinks, and the second tribe to finish wins one cheese pizza to share. The last tribe to finish wins no reward.

Soko placed first and Yawa placed second after Levu was unable to recover from their bad start. Ryan anticipated a merge and considered blindsiding JP for being a physical threat. At the Levu camp, Ashley tried to turn Desi against Joe, and Desi considered making that move. Meanwhile, Devon tried to keep an eye on Joe to make sure he wouldn’t scheme, but when he turned his back, Joe found a clue to a hidden immunity idol. That night, while everyone else was asleep, Joe followed the clue to the idol’s location. At the Yawa camp, Cole passed out from hunger, but after Mike and Jessica checked on him, he felt fine. Ben and Mike subsequently discussed getting rid of Cole due to his perceived weakness.

Immunity Challenge: The tribe must work together to balance a plate using 5 ropes, 4 of which are held by the tribe (1 by each member). Players must make their way to the center, one by one, and stack blocks that spell “IMMUNITY.” The first two tribes to finish win immunity, while the losing tribe will go to Tribal Council where one member will be the sixth person voted out.

Each tribe lost their stack at least once, but Yawa and Levu won the challenge, sending Soko to Tribal Council once again. Ryan and Chrissy were torn between voting out JP or Ali; Chrissy did not trust Ali, but recognized JP as a physical threat. At Tribal Council, the tribe discussed the impending merge and how JP’s laidback approach to strategy has made him tough to read. In the end, Ryan and Chrissy voted against Ali, sending her home.

519
7
"Get to Gettin'"
Recap
1.6/6[17]
November 8, 2017 (2017-11-08)
7.82[17]
21[18]

After returning from Tribal Council, Chrissy felt like she was in a power position due to both Ryan and JP wanting to work with her. At the Levu camp, the tribe's food supply was depleted. When the tribes arrived at what looked like a reward challenge, Jeff announced the merge, as well as a large steak feast. During the feast, Chrissy became irritated at Joe's mannerisms and tried to realign with Ben, who was worried that the others might hear their conversation.
At the new camp, Cole unsuccessfully attempted to find an advantage while building the new shelter. The Healers reunited with plans to bring in Ben and Lauren from the old Yawa tribe, while the Heroes & Hustlers aligned against the Healers. Devon approached Lauren about turning against the Healers, but she instantly told Mike. Devon also approached Chrissy and Ben about voting out either Joe or Cole; Ben still wanted Cole gone for personal reasons, while Jessica and Mike warned Cole that he was in danger.

Immunity Challenge: Using centrifugal force, the castaways must keep a ball spinning within a wheel as they stand on individual balance beams. At regular intervals, the castaways will be made to step forward onto narrower parts of the beam. If at any point the ball drops or a castaway falls off the beam, the castaway loses the challenge. The last castaway with a spinning ball wins immunity.

Desi outlasted Ashley to win the challenge. Cole apologized to Ben, who pretended to forgive him but realized he may have to continue with Cole to benefit his own game. Mike suggested to the rest of the Healers that they target Chrissy due to her intelligence, while Lauren tried to convince Ben to stick with the Healers. Chrissy and her allies came up with a "Plan B" to vote against Jessica in case of an idol.
At Tribal Council, Joe went off on the tribe and openly wore his idol from the Levu camp. Before the votes were read, Joe played the idol for himself, but didn't receive any votes, while Ben and Lauren sided with the Heroes & Hustlers to blindside Jessica.

520
8
"Playing with the Devil"
Recap
1.7/6[19]
November 15, 2017 (2017-11-15)
8.85[19]
18[20]

After Jessica’s elimination, the Healers lamented being in the minority, while Lauren found the secret advantage Cole looked for after the merge. She learned that she could vote twice at a Tribal Council of her choice, provided she abstains from voting at the next Tribal Council.

Reward Challenge: Randomly divided into two teams of five, castaways must race to the top of a tower. At the top of the tower, they will have to use a slingshot and sandbags to hit five targets. The first team to hit all five targets, indicated by a flag being released, wins a spaghetti dinner on a private island. In addition, the castaway drawing the odd-colored rock will join them.

Since Joe drew the white rock, he got to join the winning team of Chrissy, Cole, Devon, JP, and Ryan. Jeff revealed the feast would be served family-style, meaning players will eat one at a time and must leave enough food for the next person with Joe choosing the order. Joe ate last and suggested that Devon ate first, in an attempt to build trust with Devon. While eating, Cole found a clue to the location of a new hidden immunity idol under the plate, and he made sure to cover it up using a nearby cloth. However, Chrissy and Ryan both discovered the clue, and Ryan hid the plate in the bushes after he was finished eating. Back at camp, Ryan took advantage of Cole going off on his own and quickly found the idol before asking Chrissy to cover up his tracks. Cole dashed in to ambush Chrissy before most of the tribe joined them. Ben believed he saw Cole find it and began to target him again.

Immunity Challenge: Standing on a narrow beam, and using a long pole, castaways must balance a statue. At regular intervals, they will move further away from the statue. If at any point, they fall from the beam or drop their statue, they are out of the challenge. The last person left standing wins immunity.

Cole outlasted JP to win the challenge, foiling the plans of the majority alliance. Ben suggested splitting the vote between Joe and Desi, who had proven to be a strong competitor. Joe tried to convince Ryan and Devon to blindside Ben, who Joe perceived as the leader of the alliance, but Ben overheard the conversation. Ben confronted Joe, who accused him of swearing on the Marines; this angered Ben, and the two got into a heated argument. Lauren told Ben of her advantage and how it would prevent them from splitting the votes at that night’s Tribal Council; Ben then asked Mike to join his alliance in voting out Joe in fear of the vote split causing a scenario where he would be voted out.
At Tribal Council, Joe reignited his argument with Ben, who subsequently opened up about his time after the Marines. During the vote, Lauren was able to play her advantage without being caught, Cole and Mike joined in the majority alliance's split-vote plan, and the votes were tied at 4 apiece between Joe and Desi while Ben and Lauren each received a stray vote. On the revote, Desi received 7 votes to Joe's 1 and became the first member of the jury.

521
9
"Fear of the Unknown"
Recap
1.4/5[21]
November 22, 2017 (2017-11-22)
7.42[21]
15[22]

The morning after Desi's elimination, Mike pitched an idea to the majority alliance to blindside Cole at the next Tribal Council. Meanwhile, Lauren told Ben about her successful advantage play, and Ryan told Devon about his immunity idol.

Reward Challenge: Randomly divided into two teams of five, three castaways will swim out to a tall ladder, climb it, leap into the water, and retrieve a key on a buoy. Once they have the keys, the next two will unlock a chest containing balls. They will then have to score five baskets to win a feast on a luxury yacht.

The team of Chrissy, Cole, Joe, JP, and Mike won the challenge. Joe hoped to use the reward to sway Chrissy and JP to his side, but his efforts were for naught. At camp, Joe capitalised on his tribemates' perception of him as obnoxious and abrasive and called Ashley a goat in order to make them believe he would never win a jury vote at Final Tribal and thus, not be voted out. Ryan told Ben about his idol, and while Ben was excited about his ally finding it instead of Cole, he also realized it would make Ryan a threat to him in the future. Ben told Devon, who started to lose trust in Ryan because he wasn't the only one who knew about Ryan's idol.

Immunity Challenge: Castaways will have to stand up slightly in a squatting position, releasing the safety from their apparatus holding up an urn of water above a fire. Should they stand too high, their urn will extinguish their fire, or if they go too low, will release a flag eliminating them from the challenge. The last castaway standing wins immunity.

Lauren outlasted Cole to win immunity. Back at camp, Ben wanted to split the vote between Cole and Mike, but Chrissy and Ashley were fed up with Joe. Ben was very adamant about wanting to vote out either Cole or Mike, causing some discourse among the majority. After Chrissy was shut down by Ben about Joe's status as a threat despite being widely disliked, she discussed deviating from Ben's plan and voting out Joe with her allies and Mike.
Before Tribal Council started, Mike told Joe to follow his lead. Chrissy confronted Joe about insulting her and Ashley before Mike outlined the hypocrisy in her argument, stating that, by keeping Joe in the game, the rest of the castaways were not playing with moral character. Joe accused everyone else of not playing the game at all, and Mike brought up the fact that the majority had 4 Heroes and 3 Hustlers, meaning the Hustlers would be picked off one by one at that point after voting out the rest of the Healers. Ashley countered Mike's point by outlining that his comment was just as hypocritical as Chrissy's opening one, that nobody is just a number and that morals and relationships do serve a purpose in the game. Before the votes were read, Mike played his idol for himself, but received only 2 votes. Ultimately, Ben got his way, and everyone else voted Cole out.

522

523
10

11
"Buy One, Get One Free"
Recap, part 1

Recap, part 2
1.8/7[23]
November 29, 2017 (2017-11-29)
8.27[23]
18[24]

After the heated Tribal Council, Mike revealed his blowup was a calculated plan to ensure the vote went against him so he would play his idol.

Reward Challenge: Using only their feet, castaways must unwind a rope to release blocks that they will use to assemble a three-tiered tower with a flag in the middle. The first castaway to complete their tower will win an aerial tour of the Sacred Islands and a feast of cheeseburgers, fries, and beer.

Lauren won the challenge and chose to share the reward with Devon, Ben, and Ashley. At camp, Ryan and Chrissy discussed voting out Ben and Lauren after Joe and Mike. While on reward, Lauren revealed she chose Devon, Ben, and Ashley due to her plans for a 4-person alliance to shake up the game, and they were in agreement. The castaways on the reward trip received letters from home. The next morning at camp, while reading his letter, Ben stumbled upon a clue to the location of a new hidden immunity idol, which he eventually found.

Immunity Challenge: Perched on a roof-shaped structure, castaways will have to balance on narrow beams. After 20 minutes, castaways will move up the structure, standing on a narrow beam. If at any point a castaway touches the structure with any body part other than their feet, or they fall off, they are out of the challenge. The last person left standing wins immunity.

Before the challenge started, Jeff tempted the castaways with food; Devon, Ben, and Lauren sat out, and Ashley won immunity. Back at camp, Lauren’s new alliance prepared their revolt, with Devon assigning Ben to be their “double agent”, voting against Mike, while Lauren and Ashley asked Joe and Mike to join them. At Tribal Council, Lauren’s alliance put their plan in motion, completely blindsiding JP and sending him to the jury.
After Tribal Council, a stunned Chrissy and Ryan confronted their former allies about leaving them out of the vote. Ryan tried to make amends with Devon, but he was unable to do so.

Reward Challenge: Randomly divided into two teams of four, castaways will swim out to a boat. They will then paddle to shore, collecting 4 bags of logs along the way. Back on shore, they will use the logs to push out puzzle pieces from a chute. The first team to finish their puzzle wins a spa trip with a feast.

The team of Ashley, Ben, Devon, and Joe won the challenge. On the reward trip, Ashley considered turning against Ben. Back at camp, Ryan unsuccessfully tried to sway Mike to his side, and Chrissy also failed with Lauren.

Immunity Challenge: Using a driving wheel, castaways drive a key hanging on an urn through a series of obstacles. The key will unlock a set of puzzle pieces. Using the driving wheel, they must transport the puzzle pieces to the finish. The first person to solve the word puzzle “INVULNERABLE” wins immunity.

Chrissy won the challenge. At camp, Lauren told her alliance about her second vote, and Devon told Mike and Joe that they would use it to split the votes between Ryan and Ben, when in reality, the alliance would stick together to blindside Joe. In private, Ashley told Lauren and Devon she was having second thoughts about staying loyal to Ben.
At Tribal Council, Ben continued his charade of being on the outside, but he warned Joe and Mike that they were on the bottom of the new alliance. Before the vote, Ryan played his idol but received only 2 votes. Ultimately, the alliance of 4 stuck together and sent Joe to the jury.

524
12
"Not Going to Roll Over and Die"
Recap
1.8/7[25]
December 6, 2017 (2017-12-06)
8.96[25]
11[26]

After Joe’s elimination, Chrissy angrily confronted Ben about his betrayal, and they got into an argument. When the castaways arrived at the reward challenge, they were reunited with their loved ones: Ashley’s father Jim, Ryan’s father Steve, Mike’s wife Bari, Lauren’s sister Sunny, Chrissy’s husband Keith, Devon’s mother Sonia, and Ben’s wife Kelly.

Reward Challenge: The castaways will conduct this challenge with their loved ones. Each person will have a bag with black and white marbles. Both the castaways and their loved ones must draw the same-colored marble to remain in the challenge. The last pair left standing wins a Survivor barbeque and quality time with each other.

All except Ben and Chrissy failed to match on the first round. In the second round, Ben failed to match while Chrissy was able to. After winning reward, Chrissy chose Ryan, Mike, and Ashley, as well as their loved ones, to join her and her husband. Chrissy later revealed she chose Ashley because she felt that Ashley would be the easiest to turn against the majority. Ben made a fake idol in hopes that Chrissy would find it, while Lauren found half of a real idol, showing it to Ben and Devon, with the other half hidden at the immunity challenge.

Immunity Challenge: The castaways must support two discs, weighted by wind chimes, supported by two posts with only their fingertips. If they drop their discs, they are out of the challenge. The last person left standing wins immunity.

Devon conceded immunity to Ashley for a massage, stating that they were a tight alliance. Lauren picked up the second half of the idol at the challenge, but was seen by Ben. Ashley continued to talk to Devon and Lauren about blindsiding Ben, but he overheard the conversation. After they agreed on voting out Chrissy, a paranoid Ben realized how much power Lauren had in the game, between her idol and the extra vote. He got Mike and Ryan on board with voting out Lauren and tried to convince Chrissy, but she was still angry with him. She told Mike she wanted Ben out, and Mike told Ashley and Devon that Ben told Chrissy about Lauren’s power. Devon warned Lauren that she was in danger, and Lauren gave the other half of the idol to Mike to show him she trusted him.
At Tribal Council, Devon said he stepped down at the immunity challenge to show his trust in his alliance, not including Ben. Ben subsequently confronted his tribemates about potentially voting him out, and he said flat-out that he would vote for Lauren. Lauren revealed she left her extra vote at camp, while Ben revealed his fake idol. Mike then tossed the half of Lauren’s idol that he had into the fire. While the tribe openly quarreled amongst each other, Ryan whispered to Mike that Lauren had to go, but Mike convinced him to vote for Ben. Devon then walked over to Mike and instructed him to vote out Ben, which made Chrissy walk over to Ryan to say she was on board with voting out Lauren. She refused when Mike and Ryan asked her to vote out Ben. In the end, everyone voted for Ben. However, unbeknownst to the others, Ben also had his real idol; he played it on himself, and for the first time in Survivor history, a unanimous vote was successfully negated. Ben’s sole vote sent Lauren out of the game, much to the shock of the other jury members, except Joe.

525
13
"The Survivor Devil"
Recap
1.8/7[27]
December 13, 2017 (2017-12-13)
8.74[27]
11[28]

After the hectic tribal council, the tribe dynamic was Ben vs. everyone else. Ben woke up early the next morning to search for a new hidden immunity idol, and nobody followed him, as they believed he wouldn't find it.

Reward Challenge: Randomly divided into three pairs, castaways are clipped to a rope and must maneuver together through three obstacles. Once they have reached the end of the course, they will unclip themselves and attempt to throw rings onto a target. The first pair to get all five rings on the target wins an overnight stay at a private island with a feast.

Devon and Chrissy won the challenge; Jeff instructed them to take one more person, and Chrissy suggested to Devon that they select Ryan. They did so, much to Ashley's shock and chagrin. Mike was also frustrated, as he saw himself as a swing vote. Ben tried to talk strategy with Mike and Ashley at camp, but neither of them wanted any part of it. On reward, Chrissy proposed a final 3 deal with Ryan and Devon. She also considered voting out Ashley before Ben, out of fear that she has built better relationships in the game.

Immunity Challenge: The castaways must first climb a ladder and go down a cargo net. Then will then have to traverse a series of obstacles, where they will then untie a bag containing sandbags. Using the sandbags, they must get one into a basket, which will release the first ladder on a tower. One the second level, castaways will then use a ball and rope to pull down a second ladder. On the top of the tower, castaways then have to solve a cog puzzle. The first person to finish the puzzle and hoist their flag wins immunity.

Chrissy won immunity. Ben continued his search for an idol, while Ashley suggested splitting the vote between Ben and Mike. Chrissy began campaigning for Ashley's elimination, but Mike desperately wanted Ben out, while Devon was reluctant to turn against Ashley. Ben eventually found a clue saying the idol was hidden under the shelter.
At Tribal Council, final 3 discussions and potential plans were brought up. Devon continued campaigning against Ben, who subsequently revealed he did find the idol. He convinced Ashley to vote for Mike, and when Devon said he wouldn't believe Ben would play the idol, Ben presented the idol to Jeff to play on himself before the votes were to be cast. Ashley did vote for Mike, but everyone else, including Devon, blindsided Ashley, sending her to the jury.

526
14
"Million Dollar Night"
Recap
1.9/8[29]
December 20, 2017 (2017-12-20)
8.70[29]
8[30]

As the tribe returned from Tribal Council, Chrissy, Devon, Mike, and Ryan reinforced their desire to vote out Ben, who searched for a newly hidden idol all night. He found it early the next morning, marking his third consecutive idol discovery. Chrissy attempted to bury the hatchet with Ben in order to keep herself in the game in case Ben won immunity (not knowing he found another idol), but Ben still wanted to vote her out.

Reward/Immunity Challenge: Castaways will swim out and then climb a stack of crates. Jumping off the crates, they must grab a bag of keys. Castaways will then swim to a balance beam, and cross it, while getting a second set of keys. Using their keys, castaways will unlock their puzzle. Castaways must move balls around so they match the corresponding color in the chute. The first person to solve their puzzle wins immunity and a feast of comfort food.

Chrissy won immunity and chose to share her reward with Mike and Devon. They searched for an idol clue on reward, but they were unable to find one. Chrissy told Mike and Devon about her super idol from the first Tribal Council, and she planned to trick Ben into thinking she found a new idol so that he wouldn't search for one himself. Ben let them think he believed them, but the joke was on them, as he had found the real one that morning. Devon felt uneasy about Ben's nonchalant attitude about getting voted out at the next Tribal Council, and he told Ryan he was considering voting against Mike, but Ryan tried to talk him out of it.
At Tribal Council, Chrissy pulled out her now-defunct super idol and continued her charade, while Ben continued acting as though he would get voted out that night. Before the votes were read, Chrissy offered her idol to her alliance; Mike was prepared to play it to continue the feign, but Ben pulled out his idol to play on himself, negating the three votes against him and shocking the other four players. Devon did vote against Mike, but Ben voted against Devon, creating a tie. Ben, Chrissy, and Ryan went to revote; Mike was eliminated after receiving two votes to Devon's one.
After Mike left Tribal Council, Jeff surprised the final 4 by revealing there was one more twist left in the game. Upon returning to camp, the castaways were on edge about what the twist might be.

Immunity Challenge: Castaways will have to stack letter blocks on a wobbly platform. The first person to correctly spell "Heroes," "Healers," and "Hustlers", without any upside down letters wins immunity and is guaranteed a spot in the Final Tribal Council.

Chrissy tied the record for most individual immunity wins by a woman, winning her fourth challenge after several drops by all castaways. Chrissy also received the twist, which was revealed to be a final game advantage. This gave her the power to choose one person to bring to the Final Three with her, with the other two castaways going to a fire-making challenge to determine who would get the last spot in the Final Three and who would be the last jury member. Chrissy felt like Devon would have a better chance to beat Ben than Ryan would; she told Devon and Ryan her plans with the advantage, and Devon broke the flint while practicing his fire-making skills.
At Tribal Council, Chrissy revealed her advantage to the jury and Ben. She voted to take Ryan to the end, and Ben won the ensuing firemaking challenge, making Devon the final member of the jury.
Chrissy, Ben, and Ryan enjoyed the traditional Day 39 breakfast. That night, the finalists and the jurors convened for the Final Tribal Council. Like he did in Game Changers, Jeff led a moderated discussion that focused on the three aspects of the game, "Outwit," "Outplay," and "Outlast." During the discussion, Ryan was chastised for his perceived laziness at camp and his increasingly weak strategic game, Chrissy was praised for her challenge prowess, and Ben was applauded for his strong strategic game; however, both Chrissy and Ben were castigated for their poor social games, with Ben taking most of the heat. Ben opened up to the jury about his post-traumatic stress disorder and how he has learned to live with it, stating that he hopes to help show fellow veterans that while life after the military is difficult, there is more to look forward to in the future.

527
15
"Reunion Special"
N/A
1.2/5[29]
December 20, 2017 (2017-12-20)
5.97[29]
17[30]

Several months later, at the live reunion show, Ben was named the Sole Survivor in a 5–2–1 vote. Chrissy finished in second place with Ashley and Mike's votes, and Ryan came in third after receiving Devon's vote.

text: Voting history[edit]

text:
Original tribes
Switched tribes
Merged tribe

Episode #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Day #
3
6
8
11
14
16
19
21
24
27
30
33
36
37
38

Eliminated
Katrina
Simone
Patrick
Alan
Roark
Ali
Jessica
Tie[a]
Desi
Cole
JP
Joe
Lauren
Ashley
Tie[a]
Mike
Devon

Votes
5–1
5–1
4–1
2–0[b]
3–2
3–1
7–5
4–4–1–1
7–1
7–1–0[c]
5–3–1
4–2–0[d]
1–0[e]
5–1
1–1–0[f]
2–1
Challenge[g]

Voter
Vote

Ben
Katrina

Jessica
Desi
Desi
Cole
Mike
Joe
Lauren
Ashley
Devon
Devon
Win[g]

Chrissy
Katrina

Roark
Ali
Jessica
Joe
Desi
Mike
Joe
Ashley
Ben
Ashley
Ben
Mike
Immune[g]

Ryan

Simone
Patrick

Roark
Ali
Jessica
Desi
Desi
Cole
Mike
Ashley
Ben
Ashley
Ben
Mike
Saved[g]

Devon

Simone
Patrick
None[h]

Jessica
Desi
Desi
Cole
JP
Joe
Ben
Ashley
Mike
None[i]
Lose[g]

Mike

Chrissy
Joe
Joe
Cole
JP
Ryan
Ben
Ashley
Ben
None[i]

Ashley
Katrina

Joe

Jessica
Joe
Desi
Cole
JP
Joe
Ben
Mike

Lauren

Simone
Patrick

Jessica
None[j]
Cole
JP
Joe
Ben

Joe

Alan

Chrissy
Ben
None[k]
Cole
JP
Ryan

JP
Katrina

Roark
Ali
Jessica
Desi
Desi
Mike
Mike

Cole

Chrissy
Joe
Desi
Ben

Desi

Alan

Chrissy
Lauren
None[k]

Jessica

Chrissy

Ali

Simone
Patrick

Chrissy
JP

Roark

Chrissy

Alan
Katrina

Joe

Patrick

Simone
Lauren

Simone

Patrick

Katrina
Ashley

text:
Jury vote[31]

Episode #
14

Day #
39

Finalist
Ryan
Chrissy
Ben

Votes
5–2–1

Juror
Vote

Devon
Ryan

Mike

Chrissy

Ashley

Chrissy

Lauren

Ben

Joe

Ben

JP

Ben

Cole

Ben

Desi

Ben

text:
^ Jump up to: a b The vote resulted in a tie. Per the rules, a second vote was held where the castaways involved in the tie would not vote and the remaining castaways could only vote for those who tied.
Jump up ^ Joe played a hidden immunity idol on himself, therefore two votes against him were not counted.
Jump up ^ Mike played a hidden immunity idol on himself, therefore two votes against him were not counted.
Jump up ^ Ryan played a hidden immunity idol on himself, therefore two votes against him were not counted.
Jump up ^ Ben played a hidden immunity idol on himself, therefore six votes against him were not counted.
Jump up ^ Ben played a hidden immunity idol on himself, therefore three votes against him were not counted.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e For winning the Final Immunity Challenge, Chrissy was secretly informed of a twist set to take place at that night's Tribal Council. Chrissy had to give immunity to one of the other remaining castaways; she chose to save Ryan. Then, instead of a vote, the Final Elimination would be determined by a Fire-Making Duel between Devon and Ben. Ben won, making Devon the last player eliminated from the game.
Jump up ^ Devon was not eligible to vote in the Tribal Council vote, as Jessica secretly used her vote block power on him.
^ Jump up to: a b Devon and Mike were not eligible to vote in the second round of voting.
Jump up ^ As her advantage required her to abstain from voting during the Day 21 Tribal Council in order to receive an additional vote at a future Tribal Council, Lauren chose not to vote; she was thus likewise ineligible to vote during the revote.
^ Jump up to: a b Desi and Joe were not eligible to vote in the second round of voting.

text: Reception[edit]

text: One element of the game that was panned by critics was the final four twist.[32] After winning the final immunity challenge, Chrissy was awarded an advantage at Tribal Council. In place of the conventional Day 38 final vote-off, she would select one contestant to join her in the Finals, while the remaining two contestants would compete in a fire-making challenge to determine the third finalist. Due to the inclusion of this twist, contestant Ben Driebergen, who almost certainly seemed destined to be voted out in fourth place otherwise, managed to win the challenge and, ultimately, the season.[33]

text: Alyssa Norwin of Hollywood Life said that the twist undermined the significance of winning immunity.[34] People Magazine blogger Stephen Fishbach, who played in Survivor: Tocantins and Survivor: Cambodia, tweeted that it removed fundamental social strategy from the game.[35] Survivor: Millennials vs. Gen X winner Adam Klein commented, "Super happy for the winner who played their heart out!! That being said, if that twist happened in my season, I would have come in 4th most likely. Players should be able to plan out their own endgame and know the basic format of the game they play."[36]

text: Ratings[edit]

text: The September 27 premiere episode, titled "I'm Not Crazy, I'm Confident" saw a significant boost in viewership over March's Survivor: Game Changers with 8.33 million people tuning in, compared to the show's all-time low of 7.64 earlier in the year. However, the premiere of the show's 35th season was unable to match Survivor: Millennials vs. Gen X's premiere viewership from fall 2016. That said, the series once again ranked first in its time-slot (by a significant margin) and once again tied with ABC's The Goldbergs for the critical 18-49 demographic, with both placing behind Fox's Empire.[37]

text: U.S. Nielsen ratings[edit]

text:
No. in
series
No. in
season
Episode
Air date
Time slot (EST)
Rating/share
(18–49) [38]
Viewers
(in millions)[39]

513
1
"I'm Not Crazy, I'm Confident"
September 27, 2017 (2017-09-27)
Wednesdays
8:00 p.m.
1.8/7
8.33

514
2
"I'm a Wild Banshee"
October 4, 2017 (2017-10-04)
1.6/6
8.15

515
3
"My Kisses are Very Private"
October 11, 2017 (2017-10-11)
1.7/7
8.02

516
4
"I Don't Like Having Snakes Around"
October 18, 2017 (2017-10-18)
1.8/7
8.12

517
5
"The Past Will Eat You Alive"
October 25, 2017 (2017-10-25)
1.7/7
8.22

518
6
"This is Why You Play Survivor"
November 1, 2017 (2017-11-01)
1.6/6
7.69

519
7
"Get to Gettin'"
November 8, 2017 (2017-11-08)
1.6/6
7.82

520
8
"Playing with the Devil"
November 15, 2017 (2017-11-15)
1.7/6
8.85

521
9
"Fear of the Unknown"
November 22, 2017 (2017-11-22)
1.4/5
7.42

522
10
"Buy One, Get One Free"
November 29, 2017 (2017-11-29)
1.8/7
8.27

523
11
"Not Going to Roll Over and Die"
December 6, 2017 (2017-12-06)
1.8/7
8.96

524
12
"The Survivor Devil"
December 13, 2017 (2017-12-13)
1.8/7
8.74

525
13
"Million Dollar Night"
December 20, 2017 (2017-12-20)
1.9/8
8.70

526
14
"Reunion Special"
December 20, 2017 (2017-12-20)
10:00 p.m.
1.2/5
5.97


document_title: HTTPS

question_text: what two types of information are encrypted by the https protocol (choose two.)

question_tokens: what two types of information are encrypted by the https protocol ( choose two . )

root

text: HTTPS

text: Overview[edit]

text: The Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) scheme HTTPS has identical usage syntax to the HTTP scheme. However, HTTPS signals the browser to use an added encryption layer of SSL/TLS to protect the traffic. SSL/TLS is especially suited for HTTP, since it can provide some protection even if only one side of the communication is authenticated. This is the case with HTTP transactions over the Internet, where typically only the server is authenticated (by the client examining the server's certificate).

tag: p

text: HTTPS creates a secure channel over an insecure network. This ensures reasonable protection from eavesdroppers and man-in-the-middle attacks, provided that adequate cipher suites are used and that the server certificate is verified and trusted.

text: Because HTTPS piggybacks HTTP entirely on top of TLS, the entirety of the underlying HTTP protocol can be encrypted. This includes the request URL (which particular web page was requested), query parameters, headers, and cookies (which often contain identity information about the user). However, because host (website) addresses and port numbers are necessarily part of the underlying TCP/IP protocols, HTTPS cannot protect their disclosure. In practice this means that even on a correctly configured web server, eavesdroppers can infer the IP address and port number of the web server (sometimes even the domain name e.g. www.example.org, but not the rest of the URL) that one is communicating with, as well as the amount (data transferred) and duration (length of session) of the communication, though not the content of the communication.[5]

text: Web browsers know how to trust HTTPS websites based on certificate authorities that come pre-installed in their software. Certificate authorities (such as Symantec, Comodo, GoDaddy, GlobalSign and Let's Encrypt) are in this way being trusted by web browser creators to provide valid certificates. Therefore, a user should trust an HTTPS connection to a website if and only if all of the following are true:

text:
The user trusts that the browser software correctly implements HTTPS with correctly pre-installed certificate authorities.
The user trusts the certificate authority to vouch only for legitimate websites.
The website provides a valid certificate, which means it was signed by a trusted authority.
The certificate correctly identifies the website (e.g., when the browser visits "https://example.com", the received certificate is properly for "example.com" and not some other entity).
The user trusts that the protocol's encryption layer (SSL/TLS) is sufficiently secure against eavesdroppers.

tag: ul

text: HTTPS is especially important over insecure networks (such as public Wi-Fi access points), as anyone on the same local network can packet-sniff and discover sensitive information not protected by HTTPS. Additionally, many free to use and paid WLAN networks engage in packet injection in order to serve their own ads on webpages. However, this can be exploited maliciously in many ways, such as injecting malware onto webpages and stealing users' private information.[6]

text: HTTPS is also very important for connections over the Tor anonymity network, as malicious Tor nodes can damage or alter the contents passing through them in an insecure fashion and inject malware into the connection. This is one reason why the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Tor project started the development of HTTPS Everywhere,[5] which is included in the Tor Browser Bundle.[7]

text: As more information is revealed about global mass surveillance and criminals stealing personal information, the use of HTTPS security on all websites is becoming increasingly important regardless of the type of Internet connection being used.[8][9] While metadata about individual pages that a user visits is not sensitive, when combined, they can reveal a lot about the user and compromise the user's privacy.[10][11][12]

text: Deploying HTTPS also allows the use of HTTP/2 (or its predecessor, the now-deprecated protocol SPDY), that are new generations of HTTP, designed to reduce page load times and latency.

text: It is recommended to use HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with HTTPS to protect users from man-in-the-middle attacks, especially SSL stripping.[12][13]

text: HTTPS should not be confused with the little-used Secure HTTP (S-HTTP) specified in RFC 2660.

text: Usage in websites[edit]

text: As of November 2017[update], 27.7% of Alexa top 1,000,000 websites use HTTPS as default,[14] 43.1% of the Internet's 141,387 most popular websites have a secure implementation of HTTPS,[15] and 45% of page loads (measured by Firefox Telemetry) use HTTPS.[16]

text: According to Mozilla since January 2017 more than half of the Web traffic is encrypted.[17][18]

text: Browser integration[edit]

text: Most browsers display a warning if they receive an invalid certificate. Older browsers, when connecting to a site with an invalid certificate, would present the user with a dialog box asking whether they wanted to continue. Newer browsers display a warning across the entire window. Newer browsers also prominently display the site's security information in the address bar. Extended validation certificates turn the address bar green in newer browsers. Most browsers also display a warning to the user when visiting a site that contains a mixture of encrypted and unencrypted content.

text:
Comparison between different kinds of SSL/TLS certificates
(Using Firefox as an example)

Many web browsers, including Firefox (shown here), use the address bar to tell the user that their connection is secure, often by coloring the background.

When accessing a site only with a common certificate, the address bar of Firefox turns green. For some other browsers, a "lock" sign may appear.

Most web browsers alert the user when visiting sites that have invalid security certificates.

tag: table

text: The Electronic Frontier Foundation, opining that "In an ideal world, every web request could be defaulted to HTTPS", has provided an add-on called HTTPS Everywhere for Mozilla Firefox that enables HTTPS by default for hundreds of frequently used websites. A beta version of this plugin is also available for Google Chrome and Chromium.[19][20]

text: Security[edit]

text: The security of HTTPS is that of the underlying TLS, which typically uses long-term public and private keys to generate a short-term session key, which is then used to encrypt the data flow between client and server. X.509 certificates are used to authenticate the server (and sometimes the client as well). As a consequence, certificate authorities and public key certificates are necessary to verify the relation between the certificate and its owner, as well as to generate, sign, and administer the validity of certificates. While this can be more beneficial than verifying the identities via a web of trust, the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures drew attention to certificate authorities as a potential weak point allowing man-in-the-middle attacks.[21][22] An important property in this context is forward secrecy, which ensures that encrypted communications recorded in the past cannot be retrieved and decrypted should long-term secret keys or passwords be compromised in the future. Not all web servers provide forward secrecy.[23][needs update]

text: A site must be completely hosted over HTTPS, without having part of its contents loaded over HTTP –  for example, having scripts loaded insecurely –  or the user will be vulnerable to some attacks and surveillance. Also having only a certain page that contains sensitive information (such as a log-in page) of a website loaded over HTTPS, while having the rest of the website loaded over plain HTTP, will expose the user to attacks. On a site that has sensitive information somewhere on it, every time that site is accessed with HTTP instead of HTTPS, the user and the session will get exposed. Similarly, cookies on a site served through HTTPS have to have the secure attribute enabled.[12]

text: Technical[edit]

text: Difference from HTTP[edit]

text: HTTPS URLs begin with "https://" and use port 443 by default, whereas HTTP URLs begin with "http://" and use port 80 by default.

text: HTTP is not encrypted and is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle and eavesdropping attacks, which can let attackers gain access to website accounts and sensitive information, and modify webpages to inject malware or advertisements. HTTPS is designed to withstand such attacks and is considered secure against them (with the exception of older, deprecated versions of SSL).

text: Network layers[edit]

text: HTTP operates at the highest layer of the TCP/IP model, the Application layer; as does the TLS security protocol (operating as a lower sublayer of the same layer), which encrypts an HTTP message prior to transmission and decrypts a message upon arrival. Strictly speaking, HTTPS is not a separate protocol, but refers to use of ordinary HTTP over an encrypted SSL/TLS connection.

text: Everything in the HTTPS message is encrypted, including the headers, and the request/response load. With the exception of the possible CCA cryptographic attack described in the limitations section below, the attacker can only know that a connection is taking place between the two parties and their domain names and IP addresses.

text: Server setup[edit]

text: To prepare a web server to accept HTTPS connections, the administrator must create a public key certificate for the web server. This certificate must be signed by a trusted certificate authority for the web browser to accept it without warning. The authority certifies that the certificate holder is the operator of the web server that presents it. Web browsers are generally distributed with a list of signing certificates of major certificate authorities so that they can verify certificates signed by them.

text: Acquiring certificates[edit]

text: Authoritatively signed certificates may be free[24][25] or cost between 8 USD[26] and 70 USD[27] per year (in 2012–2014).

text: Organizations may also run their own certificate authority, particularly if they are responsible for setting up browsers to access their own sites (for example, sites on a company intranet, or major universities). They can easily add copies of their own signing certificate to the trusted certificates distributed with the browser.

text: There also exists a peer-to-peer certificate authority, CACert. However, it is not included in the trusted root certificates of many popular browsers (e.g. Firefox, Chrome, Internet Explorer), which may cause warning messages to be displayed to end users.

text: Let's Encrypt, launched in April 2016,[28] provides free and automated SSL/TLS certificates to websites.[29] According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, "Let's Encrypt" will make switching from HTTP to HTTPS "as easy as issuing one command, or clicking one button."[30]

text: Use as access control[edit]

text: The system can also be used for client authentication in order to limit access to a web server to authorized users. To do this, the site administrator typically creates a certificate for each user, a certificate that is loaded into their browser. Normally, that contains the name and e-mail address of the authorized user and is automatically checked by the server on each reconnect to verify the user's identity, potentially without even entering a password.

text: In case of compromised secret (private) key[edit]

text: An important property in this context is perfect forward secrecy (PFS). Possessing one of the long-term asymmetric secret keys used to establish an HTTPS session should not make it easier to derive the short-term session key to then decrypt the conversation, even at a later time. Diffie–Hellman key exchange (DHE) and Elliptic curve Diffie–Hellman key exchange (ECDHE) are in 2013 the only ones known to have that property. Only 30% of Firefox, Opera, and Chromium Browser sessions use it, and nearly 0% of Apple's Safari and Microsoft Internet Explorer sessions.[23] Among the larger internet providers, only Google supports PFS since 2011 (State of September 2013).[citation needed]

text: A certificate may be revoked before it expires, for example because the secrecy of the private key has been compromised. Newer versions of popular browsers such as Firefox,[31] Opera,[32] and Internet Explorer on Windows Vista[33] implement the Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) to verify that this is not the case. The browser sends the certificate's serial number to the certificate authority or its delegate via OCSP and the authority responds, telling the browser whether the certificate is still valid.[34]

text: Limitations[edit]

text: SSL and TLS encryption can be configured in two modes: simple and mutual. In simple mode, authentication is only performed by the server. The mutual version requires the user to install a personal client certificate in the web browser for user authentication..[35] In either case, the level of protection depends on the correctness of the implementation of software and the cryptographic algorithms in use.

text: SSL/TLS does not prevent the indexing of the site by a web crawler, and in some cases the URI of the encrypted resource can be inferred by knowing only the intercepted request/response size.[36] This allows an attacker to have access to the plaintext (the publicly available static content), and the encrypted text (the encrypted version of the static content), permitting a cryptographic attack.

text: Because TLS operates at a protocol level below that of HTTP, and has no knowledge of the higher-level protocols, TLS servers can only strictly present one certificate for a particular address and port combination.[37] In the past, this meant that it was not feasible to use name-based virtual hosting with HTTPS. A solution called Server Name Indication (SNI) exists, which sends the hostname to the server before encrypting the connection, although many old browsers do not support this extension. Support for SNI is available since Firefox 2, Opera 8, Safari 2.1, Google Chrome 6, and Internet Explorer 7 on Windows Vista.[38][39][40]

text: From an architectural point of view:

text:
An SSL/TLS connection is managed by the first front machine that initiates the TLS connection. If, for any reasons (routing, traffic optimization, etc.), this front machine is not the application server and it has to decipher data, solutions have to be found to propagate user authentication information or certificate to the application server, which needs to know who is going to be connected.
For SSL/TLS with mutual authentication, the SSL/TLS session is managed by the first server that initiates the connection. In situations where encryption has to be propagated along chained servers, session timeOut management becomes extremely tricky to implement.

text: With mutual SSL/TLS, security is maximal, but on the client-side, there is no way to properly end the SSL/TLS connection and disconnect the user except by waiting for the server session to expire or closing all related client applications.

tag: ol

text: A sophisticated type of man-in-the-middle attack called SSL stripping was presented at the Blackhat Conference 2009. This type of attack defeats the security provided by HTTPS by changing the https: link into an http: link, taking advantage of the fact that few Internet users actually type "https" into their browser interface: they get to a secure site by clicking on a link, and thus are fooled into thinking that they are using HTTPS when in fact they are using HTTP. The attacker then communicates in clear with the client.[41] This prompted the development of a countermeasure in HTTP called HTTP Strict Transport Security.

text: HTTPS has been shown vulnerable to a range of traffic analysis attacks. Traffic analysis attacks are a type of side-channel attack that relies on variations in the timing and size of traffic in order to infer properties about the encrypted traffic itself. Traffic analysis is possible because SSL/TLS encryption changes the contents of traffic, but has minimal impact on the size and timing of traffic. In May 2010, a research paper by researchers from Microsoft Research and Indiana University discovered that detailed sensitive user data can be inferred from side channels such as packet sizes. More specifically, the researchers found that an eavesdropper can infer the illnesses/medications/surgeries of the user, his/her family income and investment secrets, despite HTTPS protection in several high-profile, top-of-the-line web applications in healthcare, taxation, investment and web search.[42] Although this work demonstrated vulnerability of HTTPS to traffic analysis, the approach presented by the authors required manual analysis and focused specifically on web applications protected by HTTPS.

text: The fact that most modern websites, including Google, Yahoo!, and Amazon, use HTTPS causes problems for many users trying to access public Wi-Fi hot spots, because a Wi-Fi hot spot login page fails to load if the user tries to open an HTTPS resource [43][44]. Several websites, such as nonhttps.com or nothttps.com, guarantee that they will always remain accessible by HTTP.

text: History[edit]

text: Netscape Communications created HTTPS in 1994 for its Netscape Navigator web browser.[45] Originally, HTTPS was used with the SSL protocol. As SSL evolved into Transport Layer Security (TLS), HTTPS was formally specified by RFC 2818 in May 2000.


document_title: Consequentialism

question_text: who developed idea that end justifies the means

text: Consequentialism

text: Philosophies[edit]

text: State consequentialism[edit]

text: It is the business of the benevolent man to seek to promote what is beneficial to the world and to eliminate what is harmful, and to provide a model for the world. What benefits he will carry out; what does not benefit men he will leave alone.[4]

text: Mohist consequentialism, also known as state consequentialism,[5] is an ethical theory which evaluates the moral worth of an action based on how much it contributes to the welfare of a state.[5] According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Mohist consequentialism, dating back to the 5th century BCE, is the "world's earliest form of consequentialism, a remarkably sophisticated version based on a plurality of intrinsic goods taken as constitutive of human welfare".[6]

text: Unlike utilitarianism, which views utility as the sole moral good, "the basic goods in Mohist consequentialist thinking are... order, material wealth, and increase in population".[7] During Mozi's era, war and famines were common, and population growth was seen as a moral necessity for a harmonious society. The "material wealth" of Mohist consequentialism refers to basic needs like shelter and clothing, and the "order" of Mohist consequentialism refers to Mozi's stance against warfare and violence, which he viewed as pointless and a threat to social stability.[8] Stanford sinologist David Shepherd Nivison, in The Cambridge History of Ancient China, writes that the moral goods of Mohism "are interrelated: more basic wealth, then more reproduction; more people, then more production and wealth... if people have plenty, they would be good, filial, kind, and so on unproblematically".[7]

text: The Mohists believed that morality is based on "promoting the benefit of all under heaven and eliminating harm to all under heaven". In contrast to Jeremy Bentham's views, state consequentialism is not utilitarian because it is not hedonistic or individualistic. The importance of outcomes that are good for the community outweigh the importance of individual pleasure and pain.[9] The term state consequentialism has also been applied to the political philosophy of the Confucian philosopher Xunzi.[10]

text: On the other hand, the "Legalist" Han Fei "is motivated almost totally from the ruler's point of view".[11]

text: Utilitarianism[edit]

text: Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think...

text: In summary, Jeremy Bentham states that people are driven by their interests and their fears, but their interests take precedence over their fears, and their interests are carried out in accordance with how people view the consequences that might be involved with their interests. "Happiness" on this account is defined as the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of pain. Historically, hedonistic utilitarianism is the paradigmatic example of a consequentialist moral theory. This form of utilitarianism holds that what matters is the aggregate happiness; the happiness of everyone and not the happiness of any particular person. John Stuart Mill, in his exposition of hedonistic utilitarianism, proposed a hierarchy of pleasures, meaning that the pursuit of certain kinds of pleasure is more highly valued than the pursuit of other pleasures.[12] However, some contemporary utilitarians, such as Peter Singer, are concerned with maximizing the satisfaction of preferences, hence "preference utilitarianism". Other contemporary forms of utilitarianism mirror the forms of consequentialism outlined below.

text: Ethical egoism[edit]

text: Ethical egoism can be understood as a consequentialist theory according to which the consequences for the individual agent are taken to matter more than any other result. Thus, egoism will prescribe actions that may be beneficial, detrimental, or neutral to the welfare of others. Some, like Henry Sidgwick, argue that a certain degree of egoism promotes the general welfare of society for two reasons: because individuals know how to please themselves best, and because if everyone were an austere altruist then general welfare would inevitably decrease.[13]

text: Ethical altruism[edit]

text: Ethical altruism can be seen as a consequentialist ethic which prescribes that an individual take actions that have the best consequences for everyone except for himself.[14] This was advocated by Auguste Comte, who coined the term "altruism," and whose ethics can be summed up in the phrase "Live for others".[15]

text: Rule consequentialism[edit]

text: In general, consequentialist theories focus on actions. However, this need not be the case. Rule consequentialism is a theory that is sometimes seen as an attempt to reconcile deontology and consequentialism—and in some cases, this is stated as a criticism of rule consequentialism.[16] Like deontology, rule consequentialism holds that moral behavior involves following certain rules. However, rule consequentialism chooses rules based on the consequences that the selection of those rules have. Rule consequentialism exists in the forms of rule utilitarianism and rule egoism.

text: Various theorists are split as to whether the rules are the only determinant of moral behavior or not. For example, Robert Nozick holds that a certain set of minimal rules, which he calls "side-constraints", are necessary to ensure appropriate actions.[3] There are also differences as to how absolute these moral rules are. Thus, while Nozick's side-constraints are absolute restrictions on behavior, Amartya Sen proposes a theory that recognizes the importance of certain rules, but these rules are not absolute.[3] That is, they may be violated if strict adherence to the rule would lead to much more undesirable consequences.

text: One of the most common objections to rule-consequentialism is that it is incoherent, because it is based on the consequentialist principle that what we should be concerned with is maximizing the good, but then it tells us not to act to maximize the good, but to follow rules (even in cases where we know that breaking the rule could produce better results).

text: Brad Hooker avoided this objection by not basing his form of rule-consequentialism on the ideal of maximizing the good. He writes:

text: …the best argument for rule-consequentialism is not that it derives from an overarching commitment to maximise the good. The best argument for rule-consequentialism is that it does a better job than its rivals of matching and tying together our moral convictions, as well as offering us help with our moral disagreements and uncertainties.[17]

text: Derek Parfit described Brad Hooker's book on rule-consequentialism Ideal Code, Real World as the "best statement and defence, so far, of one of the most important moral theories".[18]

text: Two-level consequentialism[edit]

text: The two-level approach involves engaging in critical reasoning and considering all the possible ramifications of one's actions before making an ethical decision, but reverting to generally reliable moral rules when one is not in a position to stand back and examine the dilemma as a whole. In practice, this equates to adhering to rule consequentialism when one can only reason on an intuitive level, and to act consequentialism when in a position to stand back and reason on a more critical level.[19][citation needed]

text: This position can be described as a reconciliation between act consequentialism – in which the morality of an action is determined by that action's effects – and rule consequentialism – in which moral behavior is derived from following rules that lead to positive outcomes.[19][citation needed]

text: The two-level approach to consequentialism is most often associated with R. M. Hare and Peter Singer.[19][citation needed]

text: Motive consequentialism[edit]

text: Another consequentialist version is motive consequentialism which looks at whether the state of affairs that results from the motive to choose an action is better or at least as good as each of the alternative state of affairs that would have resulted from alternative actions. This version gives relevance to the motive of an act and links it to its consequences. An act can therefore not be wrong if the decision to act was based on a right motive. A possible inference is, that one can not be blamed for mistaken judgements if the motivation was to do good.[20]

text: Negative consequentialism[edit]

text: Most consequentialist theories focus on promoting some sort of good consequences. However, negative utilitarianism lays out a consequentialist theory that focuses solely on minimizing bad consequences.

text: One major difference between these two approaches is the agent's responsibility. Positive consequentialism demands that we bring about good states of affairs, whereas negative consequentialism requires that we avoid bad ones. Stronger versions of negative consequentialism will require active intervention to prevent bad and ameliorate existing harm. In weaker versions, simple forbearance from acts tending to harm others is sufficient. An example of this is the Slippery Slope Argument, which encourages others to avoid a specified act on the grounds that it may ultimately lead to undesirable consequences.[21]

text: Often "negative" consequentialist theories assert that reducing suffering is more important than increasing pleasure. Karl Popper, for example, claimed "…from the moral point of view, pain cannot be outweighed by pleasure...". (While Popper is not a consequentialist per se, this is taken as a classic statement of negative utilitarianism.) When considering a theory of justice, negative consequentialists may use a statewide or global-reaching principle: the reduction of suffering (for the disadvantaged) is more valuable than increased pleasure (for the affluent or luxurious).

text: Teleological ethics[edit]

text: This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: Teleological ethics (Greek telos, "end"; logos, "science") is an ethical theory that holds that the ends or consequences of an act determine whether an act is good or evil. Teleological theories are often discussed in opposition to deontological ethical theories, which hold that acts themselves are inherently good or evil, regardless of the consequences of acts.[citation needed]

text: Teleological theories differ on the nature of the end that actions ought to promote. Eudaemonist theories (Greek eudaimonia, "happiness") hold that the goal of ethics consists in some function or activity appropriate to man as a human being, and thus tend to emphasize the cultivation of virtue or excellence in the agent as the end of all action. These could be the classical virtues—courage, temperance, justice, and wisdom—that promoted the Greek ideal of man as the "rational animal", or the theological virtues—faith, hope, and love—that distinguished the Christian ideal of man as a being created in the image of God.[citation needed]

text: Utilitarian-type theories hold that the end consists in an experience or feeling produced by the action. Hedonism, for example, teaches that this feeling is pleasure—either one's own, as in egoism (the 17th-century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes), or everyone's, as in universalistic hedonism, or utilitarianism (the 19th-century English philosophers Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Henry Sidgwick), with its formula of the "greatest pleasure of the greatest number".[citation needed]

text: Other utilitarian-type views include the claims that the end of action is survival and growth, as in evolutionary ethics (the 19th-century English philosopher Herbert Spencer); the experience of power, as in despotism; satisfaction and adjustment, as in pragmatism (20th-century American philosophers Ralph Barton Perry and John Dewey); and freedom, as in existentialism (the 20th-century French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre).[citation needed]

text: The chief problem for eudaemonist theories is to show that leading a life of virtue will also be attended by happiness—by the winning of the goods regarded as the chief end of action. That Job should suffer and Socrates and Jesus die while the wicked prosper, then seems unjust. Eudaemonists generally reply that the universe is moral and that, in Socrates' words, "No evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after death," or, in Jesus' words, "But he who endures to the end will be saved." (Matt 10:22).

text: Utilitarian theories, on the other hand, must answer the charge that ends do not justify the means. The problem arises in these theories because they tend to separate the achieved ends from the action by which these ends were produced. One implication of utilitarianism is that one's intention in performing an act may include all of its foreseen consequences. The goodness of the intention then reflects the balance of the good and evil of these consequences, with no limits imposed upon it by the nature of the act itself—even if it be, say, the breaking of a promise or the execution of an innocent man. Utilitarianism, in answering this charge, must show either that what is apparently immoral is not really so or that, if it really is so, then closer examination of the consequences will bring this fact to light. Ideal utilitarianism (G.E. Moore and Hastings Rashdall) tries to meet the difficulty by advocating a plurality of ends and including among them the attainment of virtue itself, which, as John Stuart Mill affirmed, "may be felt a good in itself, and desired as such with as great intensity as any other good".[citation needed]

text: Acts and omissions, and the "act and omissions doctrine"[edit]

text: Since pure consequentialism holds that an action is to be judged solely by its result, most consequentialist theories hold that a deliberate action is no different from a deliberate decision not to act. This contrasts with the "acts and omissions doctrine", which is upheld by some medical ethicists and some religions: it asserts there is a significant moral distinction between acts and deliberate non-actions which lead to the same outcome. This contrast is brought out in issues such as voluntary euthanasia.

text: Issues[edit]

text: Action guidance[edit]

text: One important characteristic of many normative moral theories such as consequentialism is the ability to produce practical moral judgements. At the very least, any moral theory needs to define the standpoint from which the goodness of the consequences are to be determined. What is primarily at stake here is the responsibility of the agent.[citation needed]

text: The ideal observer[edit]

text: One common tactic among consequentialists, particularly those committed to an altruistic (selfless) account of consequentialism, is to employ an ideal, neutral observer from which moral judgements can be made. John Rawls, a critic of utilitarianism, argues that utilitarianism, in common with other forms of consequentialism, relies on the perspective of such an ideal observer.[3] The particular characteristics of this ideal observer can vary from an omniscient observer, who would grasp all the consequences of any action, to an ideally informed observer, who knows as much as could reasonably be expected, but not necessarily all the circumstances or all the possible consequences. Consequentialist theories that adopt this paradigm hold that right action is the action that will bring about the best consequences from this ideal observer's perspective.[citation needed]

text: The real observer[edit]

text: In practice, it is very difficult, and at times arguably impossible, to adopt the point of view of an ideal observer. Individual moral agents do not know everything about their particular situations, and thus do not know all the possible consequences of their potential actions. For this reason, some theorists have argued that consequentialist theories can only require agents to choose the best action in line with what they know about the situation.[22] However, if this approach is naïvely adopted, then moral agents who, for example, recklessly fail to reflect on their situation, and act in a way that brings about terrible results, could be said to be acting in a morally justifiable way. Acting in a situation without first informing oneself of the circumstances of the situation can lead to even the most well-intended actions yielding miserable consequences. As a result, it could be argued that there is a moral imperative for an agent to inform himself as much as possible about a situation before judging the appropriate course of action. This imperative, of course, is derived from consequential thinking: a better-informed agent is able to bring about better consequences.[citation needed]

text: Consequences for whom[edit]

text: Moral action always has consequences for certain people or things. Varieties of consequentialism can be differentiated by the beneficiary of the good consequences. That is, one might ask "Consequences for whom?"

text: Agent-focused or agent-neutral[edit]

text: A fundamental distinction can be drawn between theories which require that agents act for ends perhaps disconnected from their own interests and drives, and theories which permit that agents act for ends in which they have some personal interest or motivation. These are called "agent-neutral" and "agent-focused" theories respectively.

text: Agent-neutral consequentialism ignores the specific value a state of affairs has for any particular agent. Thus, in an agent-neutral theory, an actor's personal goals do not count any more than anyone else's goals in evaluating what action the actor should take. Agent-focused consequentialism, on the other hand, focuses on the particular needs of the moral agent. Thus, in an agent-focused account, such as one that Peter Railton outlines, the agent might be concerned with the general welfare, but the agent is more concerned with the immediate welfare of herself and her friends and family.[3]

text: These two approaches could be reconciled by acknowledging the tension between an agent's interests as an individual and as a member of various groups, and seeking to somehow optimize among all of these interests.[citation needed] For example, it may be meaningful to speak of an action as being good for someone as an individual, but bad for them as a citizen of their town.

text: Human-centered?[edit]

text: Many consequentialist theories may seem primarily concerned with human beings and their relationships with other human beings. However, some philosophers argue that we should not limit our ethical consideration to the interests of human beings alone. Jeremy Bentham, who is regarded as the founder of utilitarianism, argues that animals can experience pleasure and pain, thus demanding that 'non-human animals' should be a serious object of moral concern.[23] More recently, Peter Singer has argued that it is unreasonable that we do not give equal consideration to the interests of animals as to those of human beings when we choose the way we are to treat them.[24] Such equal consideration does not necessarily imply identical treatment of humans and non-humans, any more than it necessarily implies identical treatment of all humans.

text: Value of consequences[edit]

text: One way to divide various consequentialisms is by the types of consequences that are taken to matter most, that is, which consequences count as good states of affairs. According to utilitarianism, a good action is one that results in an increase in pleasure, and the best action is one that results in the most pleasure for the greatest number. Closely related is eudaimonic consequentialism, according to which a full, flourishing life, which may or may not be the same as enjoying a great deal of pleasure, is the ultimate aim. Similarly, one might adopt an aesthetic consequentialism, in which the ultimate aim is to produce beauty. However, one might fix on non-psychological goods as the relevant effect. Thus, one might pursue an increase in material equality or political liberty instead of something like the more ephemeral "pleasure". Other theories adopt a package of several goods, all to be promoted equally.

text: Virtue ethics[edit]

text: Consequentialism can also be contrasted with aretaic moral theories such as virtue ethics. Whereas consequentialist theories posit that consequences of action should be the primary focus of our thinking about ethics, virtue ethics insists that it is the character rather than the consequences of actions that should be the focal point. Some virtue ethicists hold that consequentialist theories totally disregard the development and importance of moral character. For example, Philippa Foot argues that consequences in themselves have no ethical content, unless it has been provided by a virtue such as benevolence.[3]

text: However, consequentialism and virtue ethics need not be entirely antagonistic. Philosopher Iain King has developed an approach which reconciles the two schools.[25] Other consequentialists consider effects on the character of people involved in an action when assessing consequence. Similarly, a consequentialist theory may aim at the maximization of a particular virtue or set of virtues. Finally, following Foot's lead, one might adopt a sort of consequentialism that argues that virtuous activity ultimately produces the best consequences.[citation needed][clarification needed]

text: Ultimate end[edit]

text: The ultimate end is a concept in the moral philosophy of Max Weber, in which individuals act in a faithful, rather than rational, manner.[citation needed]

text: We must be clear about the fact that all ethically oriented conduct may be guided by one of two fundamentally differing and irreconcilably opposed maxims: conduct can be oriented to an "ethic of ultimate ends" or to an "ethic of responsibility." This is not to say that an ethic of ultimate ends is identical with irresponsibility, or that an ethic of responsibility is identical with unprincipled opportunism. Naturally, nobody says that. However, there is an abysmal contrast between conduct that follows the maxim of an ethic of ultimate ends—that, is in religious terms, "the Christian does rightly and leaves the results with the Lord"—and conduct that follows the maxim of an ethic of responsibility, in which case one has to give an account of the foreseeable results of one's action.

text: Etymology[edit]

text: The term "consequentialism" was coined by[citation needed] G. E. M. Anscombe in her essay "Modern Moral Philosophy" in 1958, to describe what she saw as the central error of certain moral theories, such as those propounded by Mill and Sidgwick.[26]

text: The phrase and concept of "The end justifies the means" are at least as old as the first century BC. Ovid wrote in his Heroides that Exitus acta probat "The result justifies the deed".

text: Criticisms[edit]

text: G. E. M. Anscombe objects to consequentialism on the grounds that it does not provide ethical guidance in what one ought to do because there is no distinction between consequences that are foreseen and those that are intended.[26][full citation needed]

text: Bernard Williams has argued that consequentialism is alienating because it requires moral agents to put too much distance between themselves and their own projects and commitments. Williams argues that consequentialism requires moral agents to take a strictly impersonal view of all actions, since it is only the consequences, and not who produces them, that are said to matter. Williams argues that this demands too much of moral agents—since (he claims) consequentialism demands that they be willing to sacrifice any and all personal projects and commitments in any given circumstance in order to pursue the most beneficent course of action possible. He argues further that consequentialism fails to make sense of intuitions that it can matter whether or not someone is personally the author of a particular consequence. For example, that participating in a crime can matter, even if the crime would have been committed anyway, or would even have been worse, without the agent's participation.[27]

text: Some consequentialists—most notably Peter Railton—have attempted to develop a form of consequentialism that acknowledges and avoids the objections raised by Williams. Railton argues that Williams's criticisms can be avoided by adopting a form of consequentialism in which moral decisions are to be determined by the sort of life that they express. On his account, the agent should choose the sort of life that will, on the whole, produce the best overall effects.[3]

text: Notable consequentialists[edit]

text:
R. M. Adams (born 1937)
Jonathan Baron (born 1944)
Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832)
Richard B. Brandt (1910–1997)
John Dewey (1857–1952)
Milton Friedman (1912–2006)
David Friedman
William Godwin (1756–1836)
R. M. Hare (1919–2002)
Sam Harris (author) (born 1967)[citation needed]
John Harsanyi (1920–2000)
Brad Hooker
Francis Hutcheson (1694–1746)
Shelly Kagan
Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527)
James Mill (1773–1836)
John Stuart Mill (1806–1873)
G. E. Moore (1873–1958)
Mozi (470–391 BCE)
Philip Pettit (born 1945)
Peter Railton (born 1950)
Henry Sidgwick (1838–1900)
Peter Singer (born 1946)
J. J. C. Smart (1920–2012)


document_title: Banking Regulation Act, 1949

question_text: which act govern the working of banking companies in india

text: Banking Regulation Act, 1949

text:
The Banking Regulation Act, 1949

An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to banking

Citation
Act No. 10 of 1949

Territorial extent
Whole of India

Enacted by
Parliament of India

Date enacted
10 March 1949

Status: In force

text: The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 is a legislation in India that regulates all banking firms in India.[1] Initially, the law was applicable only to banking companies. But, 1965 it was amended to make it applicable to cooperative banks and to introduce other changes.[2]

text: Overview[edit]

text: The Act provides a framework using which commercial banking in India is supervised and regulated. The Act supplements the Companies Act, 1956.[3] Primary Agricultural Credit Society and cooperative land mortgage banks are excluded from the Act.[2]

text: The Act gives the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) the power to license banks, have regulation over shareholding and voting rights of shareholders; supervise the appointment of the boards and management; regulate the operations of banks; lay down instructions for audits; control moratorium, mergers and liquidation; issue directives in the interests of public good and on banking policy, and impose penalties.[2]

text: In 1965, the Act was amended to include cooperative banks under its purview by adding the Section 56. Cooperative banks, which operate only in one state, are formed and run by the state government. But, RBI controls the licensing and regulates the business operations.[2] The Banking Act was a supplement to the previous acts related to banking.