Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

On Morality.

Geographia
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 8:15:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So I been thinking. I personally think that the motive, impact and intent of an action is more of a indicator of said action , then the action itself.

If I rob an orphanage blind to buy a yacht, that's immoral.
If I raid Bill Gates' Mansion to buy a yacht, that is also immoral, just not as much, but still immoral.
If I raid Bill Gates' again, but this time to shelter, feed and give an education to orphans, that is dubious, but well intentioned.
If Aliens have a 5-year old child and they assure me that trying to save the child, they would kill every human, killing the child is just.

What do you think?
Geographia
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 8:25:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 8:20:09 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I agree. Intentions are more telling of a persons heart rather than their actions.

Agreed. I wonder if we have any Kantians here. Would be interesting.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 8:43:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think intent has everything to do with whether a person's action is vicious or virtuous. If I shove an old lady because I hate old ladies, that's vicious. But if I shove an old lady to save her from being hit by a car, that's virtuous.

So intent factors heavily into whether an action is moral or not. But I'm not entirely convinced that intention is everything, or that a person cannot be blameworthy in spite of their intentions.

Suppose, for example, that I killed a man because I pitied the person he was abusing. Generally, it's virtuous to want to protect the innocent and defenseless, but even though my intentions were good, my action went overboard, and it seems that I'm still guilty of a moral wrong.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 8:56:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 8:15:03 PM, Geographia wrote:
So I been thinking. I personally think that the motive, impact and intent of an action is more of a indicator of said action , then the action itself.

If I rob an orphanage blind to buy a yacht, that's immoral.
If I raid Bill Gates' Mansion to buy a yacht, that is also immoral, just not as much, but still immoral.
If I raid Bill Gates' again, but this time to shelter, feed and give an education to orphans, that is dubious, but well intentioned.
If Aliens have a 5-year old child and they assure me that trying to save the child, they would kill every human, killing the child is just.


What do you think?

As a meta-ethcist, I only really accept that this is your moral standard and that there is no objective in reality. As such, I can disagree and believe my moral codes are superior (if I didn't believe they were better, I wouldn't believe them anymore) than yours, but I don't equate that to yours being "wrong" by any stretch and there is no "right" moral code.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Bannanawamajama
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 9:32:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The above post brings up a good point. Intent alone can't be the sole factor in deciding. What if someone's perceptions of what they were doing are skewed? Like if I see a man and a woman in an alley, and I shoot the man thinking he is mugging the woman, but it turns out I was wrong, do my good intentions cancel out my bad act? Or what if I steal money from someone under the justification that "money is the root of all evil" and they're better off without excess wealth? In my mind I'm doing good, but isn't it still wrong to steal?
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 9:51:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 9:32:45 PM, Bannanawamajama wrote:
The above post brings up a good point. Intent alone can't be the sole factor in deciding. What if someone's perceptions of what they were doing are skewed? Like if I see a man and a woman in an alley, and I shoot the man thinking he is mugging the woman, but it turns out I was wrong, do my good intentions cancel out my bad act?

It think it would diminish your blame by some degree since it could be considered an accident.

Or what if I steal money from someone under the justification that "money is the root of all evil" and they're better off without excess wealth? In my mind I'm doing good, but isn't it still wrong to steal?

That's kind of what I was getting at earlier. It seems in that case that you did something wrong even though you thought it was justified.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Geographia
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 11:15:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 8:56:04 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 5/22/2014 8:15:03 PM, Geographia wrote:
So I been thinking. I personally think that the motive, impact and intent of an action is more of a indicator of said action , then the action itself.

If I rob an orphanage blind to buy a yacht, that's immoral.
If I raid Bill Gates' Mansion to buy a yacht, that is also immoral, just not as much, but still immoral.
If I raid Bill Gates' again, but this time to shelter, feed and give an education to orphans, that is dubious, but well intentioned.
If Aliens have a 5-year old child and they assure me that trying to save the child, they would kill every human, killing the child is just.


What do you think?

As a meta-ethcist, I only really accept that this is your moral standard and that there is no objective in reality. As such, I can disagree and believe my moral codes are superior (if I didn't believe they were better, I wouldn't believe them anymore) than yours, but I don't equate that to yours being "wrong" by any stretch and there is no "right" moral code.

No Objective in reality?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 12:03:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 11:15:18 PM, Geographia wrote:
At 5/22/2014 8:56:04 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 5/22/2014 8:15:03 PM, Geographia wrote:
So I been thinking. I personally think that the motive, impact and intent of an action is more of a indicator of said action , then the action itself.

If I rob an orphanage blind to buy a yacht, that's immoral.
If I raid Bill Gates' Mansion to buy a yacht, that is also immoral, just not as much, but still immoral.
If I raid Bill Gates' again, but this time to shelter, feed and give an education to orphans, that is dubious, but well intentioned.
If Aliens have a 5-year old child and they assure me that trying to save the child, they would kill every human, killing the child is just.


What do you think?

As a meta-ethcist, I only really accept that this is your moral standard and that there is no objective in reality. As such, I can disagree and believe my moral codes are superior (if I didn't believe they were better, I wouldn't believe them anymore) than yours, but I don't equate that to yours being "wrong" by any stretch and there is no "right" moral code.

No Objective in reality?

The Fool: lol
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 12:44:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 11:15:18 PM, Geographia wrote:
At 5/22/2014 8:56:04 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 5/22/2014 8:15:03 PM, Geographia wrote:
So I been thinking. I personally think that the motive, impact and intent of an action is more of a indicator of said action , then the action itself.

If I rob an orphanage blind to buy a yacht, that's immoral.
If I raid Bill Gates' Mansion to buy a yacht, that is also immoral, just not as much, but still immoral.
If I raid Bill Gates' again, but this time to shelter, feed and give an education to orphans, that is dubious, but well intentioned.
If Aliens have a 5-year old child and they assure me that trying to save the child, they would kill every human, killing the child is just.


What do you think?

As a meta-ethcist, I only really accept that this is your moral standard and that there is no objective in reality. As such, I can disagree and believe my moral codes are superior (if I didn't believe they were better, I wouldn't believe them anymore) than yours, but I don't equate that to yours being "wrong" by any stretch and there is no "right" moral code.

No Objective in reality?

No objective morality in reality.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Geographia
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 2:00:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 12:44:02 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 5/22/2014 11:15:18 PM, Geographia wrote:
At 5/22/2014 8:56:04 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 5/22/2014 8:15:03 PM, Geographia wrote:
So I been thinking. I personally think that the motive, impact and intent of an action is more of a indicator of said action , then the action itself.

If I rob an orphanage blind to buy a yacht, that's immoral.
If I raid Bill Gates' Mansion to buy a yacht, that is also immoral, just not as much, but still immoral.
If I raid Bill Gates' again, but this time to shelter, feed and give an education to orphans, that is dubious, but well intentioned.
If Aliens have a 5-year old child and they assure me that trying to save the child, they would kill every human, killing the child is just.


What do you think?

As a meta-ethcist, I only really accept that this is your moral standard and that there is no objective in reality. As such, I can disagree and believe my moral codes are superior (if I didn't believe they were better, I wouldn't believe them anymore) than yours, but I don't equate that to yours being "wrong" by any stretch and there is no "right" moral code.

No Objective in reality?

No objective morality in reality.

Well that makes sense.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 3:37:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
As a meta-ethcist, I only really accept that this is your moral standard and that there is no objective in reality. As such, I can disagree and believe my moral codes are superior (if I didn't believe they were better, I wouldn't believe them anymore) than yours, but I don't equate that to yours being "wrong" by any stretch and there is no "right" moral code.

That's a position of moral relativism. The title "meta-ethicist" is meaningless as you could be a moral nihilist and call yourself a meta-ethicist in that regard as that is one of the various philosophies of meta-ethics. That clarified, moral relativism is a weak position generally, not because you deny objective morality, which I too don't see a good reason to accept, but because you appeal to personhood and private/inner precepts, which are easily rejected by Hume's argument against personhood and Wittgenstein's argument against the effectiveness or existence of private or inner ideas.
Mike_10-4
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2014 10:30:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Morality is an outgrowth of life"s Unalienable Rights of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of positive-feedback (Happiness for us humans)."

One is moral when embracing their neighbor"s Unalienable Rights. One is immoral when going against their neighbor"s Unalienable Rights.

http://www.bookdaily.com...